■'i'mcgi'^-- 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



A 



i -^?5&# . I 

# I 

I UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. J 



f 



PEDOBAPTISM : 



IS IT FKOM HEAVElf OK OF MEN ? 



BY 



J. M, Fi\osT, Ji\^, 



PiLSTOE OP THE PlLORIM BAPTIST CHUKCH, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, 



* Wli€tliec it be right ia the sight of God to hearken unto yoa more than unto 
God, judge ye."— Acts iv. 19. 

** We o«ght to obey God rather than men."— Acts iv. ^. 



x 



o'.0 



CINCINNATI; 






ma. Sizeei PrintiDg Co., 176 aud 178 Elm Street. 
1875. 



4^«iH 



-^^nn\\3 



^ 



T-E Library 



WASHiNGTOS 

ma i iii i i i " 



^4f 
ft 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by 

J. M. FROST, Jr., 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C. 



To My Eeloyed Parents, 

Who have cared for me so tenderly, who have 
watched oyer me so anxiously, and who have prayed 
for me so fervently, this little volume is most af- 
fectionately inscribed, as a feeble testimonial op 
the gratitude and the love of their son, 

JAMES MARION FEOST, Jr. 

(3) 



Prefatory Note. 



Instead of a formal preface, simply a few words will be offered 
by way of explanation. When this work was begun, nothing could 
have been further from the author's expectations and intentions 
than to write a book. His only purpose was to give the subject a 
thorough investigation for himself. As it opened up before him, 
however, and as his interest increased, he determined, in the midst 
of the investigations, to give the result of his labors to the public, 
selecting the Western Recorder as the medium. The following 
chapters were, therefore, originally designed as so many articles of 
a serial for that paper. This fact will account for the marked per- 
sonal cast they sometimes assume in the way of appeal. Their 
publication in book-form was first suggested by one of Kentucky's 
oldest and most judicious pastors, to whom the entire manuscript 
was read, and whose judgment and opinion deserved the utmost 
confidence and respect. The advice to put the matter into a small 
book was taken, partly because it had become rather bulky for a 
newspaper publication, but especially because it was hoped that by 
giving to it a more permanent form, more good would eventually 
be accomplished, which was the sole reason for publishing at all. 

It would, perhaps, be well to state also that scattered along 
through the work, in every chapter, and especially in Chapters IV., 
YI. and X., are to be found a large number of concessions from 
Pedobaptist authors. Many of these are new, and all of them 
very valuable, and if widely circulated will be for the furtherance 
of gospel truth. Special mention might be made of those quota- 
tions, taken from the recent controversy on this subject, published in 
the Southern (Methodist) Review^ and conducted by two Methodist 
divines — Kev. A. T. Bledsoe, editor of the Review, and one of his 
brethren, of considerable notoriety in this State. These will be of 
great value to any one studying the subject. Great care has been 
exercised to preserve perfect accuracy in all the quotations given. 
All of them, unless otherwise designated, were copied directly from 

(4) 



PREFATORY NOTE. Q* 

the original works ; and those from a second-hand source are taken 
from the most reliable authorities, whose Dames are also given. 
Some Baptist authors have been quoted without mentioning their 
names. 

The quotations are made very accessible by a completed index of 
authors quoted, arranged in alphabetic order. 

The earnest and prayerful endeavor throughout has been to give 
the subject a purely practical turn. It has been written in a Chris- 
tian spirit and for a Christian purpose, and is offered for the kindly 
consideration of those who differ from the positions taken. Pirst 
read, and then approve or condemn. As the work was designed 
especially for the masses, any assistance in giving it a wide circula- 
tion among them, will be very gratefully received. Already much 
pleasure, and profit, and real Christian joy have been found in the 
preparation of the work ; and now that it may find its way into 
the homes and hearts of many, and that, under the gracious influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, the cause of truth may be advanced, while 
that of error is checked, at least a little, by the contribution of his 
mite, is the earnest prayer of 

The Author. 

July 17, 1875. 



Contents. 



CHAPTER. PAGE. 

I. The Scriptures Examined from Jolin's Baptism to tlie 

Commission, ------ 9 

11. The Commission — Infants — not in "all nations" — Ex- 
cluded by Command to Baptize Believers, - 22 

III. Infants Excluded from the Commission by what it 

Further Enjoins, 32 

lY. The Commission the only Authority to Baptize, yet 
does not Include Infants, as Decided by Pedobap- 
tists. The Acts of the Apostles as far as the 
Baptism of the Jailer's Household, - - 61 

Y. The Examination of the ITew Testament Completed, 67 

YI. Infant Communion and Pedobaptista' Concessions, 83 

YII. " Church Identity,'' 99 

YIII. Is Baptism in the Koom of Circumcision ? - - 114 

IX. The Testimony of History, 136 

X. Six Charges Against the Dogma of Pedobaptism, 154 

XI. Conclusion, - - 186 

(6) 



/ 



UTHOF^s Quoted. 



PAGE. 

Advocate, The Christian ------ 188 

Augustine --------- 149 

Barclay -- 90 

Barnes, Dr. Albert 19, 62, 78 

Baird, Dr, - - 195 

Baker, Dr. Samuel 147 

Basil - . - - 147 

Bates, Eev. Wm. -.183 

Baxter, Kichard -------- S7 

Beecher, Kev. H. W. 118 

Bledsoe, Eev. A. T. 

24, 26, 5S, 56, 92, 94, 95, 141, 150, 151, 152, 164, 165 

Bloomfield 66 

Broadas, Dr. John A. ------« 147 

Bunsen 139 

Bushnell - 114 

Calvin, John - 54, 163 

Campbell, Alexander ------ 172 

Campbell^ Dr. George ----'-^--32, 36 

Carlstadt and Luther ------- 96 

Carson, Alexander -------- 30 

Chalmers, Dr, -------- 195 

Clarke, Dr. Adam -------^ g^ 

Council of Carthage ------- 150 

Coleridge -- - - - - - - - -74, 80 

Curcellaeus ------,. I39 

Dq Pressense --------- 134, 152 

De Witte, Dr. ------- - 70 

Dick, Dr. John ----.-.. 54 

Field, Dr. 90 

Fuller, Bishop -- 21 

Grotius --------- 36 

Hahn ---------= 133 

Hall, Dr. John ------„- 197 

Hanna, Dr. ( inNorth British Eeview) - - - - 79, 90 



8 AUTHORS QUOTEB. 

FAQE. 

Hanna, Dr. (in Life of Christ) - • - - - 91, 114 

Herald, The Keligious ....-- 140, 189 

Hibbard, Dr. - 29 

Hodge, Dr. Charles - 1S4, 151 

Hovey, Dr. Alvah -------- 10 

Hyppolytus --------- 139 

Jacobi, Professor - - - - - - - 74, 79, 165 

Knapp, Dr. --------- 165 

Lange, Professor --------98 

Liddell and Scott 35 

Limborch ---------89 

Luther - 139 

Mather, Cotton - 82 

Miller, C. "W. 96, 166 

Miller, Dr. Samuel 101, 148 

Mosbeim, Dr. --- 140, 169 

Motley, - 174 

Miiller, Julius -------- 80 

Keander, Dr. 48, 74, 89, 139, 163 

Olshausen, Dr. - - - - - 20, 48, 70, 71, 78, 152 

Pendleton, Dr. J. M. 29, 31, 102, 134 

Pickering's Lexicon ------- 35 

Eice, Dr. N. L. 100, 102, 126, 146, 148 

Eobinson's Lexicon ------- 35, 42 

Eyle, Kev. J. 0. 54 

Salmasius -------- 139, 150 

Scott, Dr. - - - 20, 43 

Smith, Bishop - - 197 

Sophocles' Lexicon -•-.--- 36 

Strarck -.- 162 

Stuart, Moses 43, 89, 118, 129, 135 

Taylor, Jeremy -------- 162 

Turrettine .--- 120 

"Wall 25, 90, 150 

Waller, Eev. J. L. 51, 88 

Wesley, Eev. John 183 

Whitby, Dr. 62 

Wood, Dr. - - -89,16^ 

Ypeij and Dermont --- = »-- 70 



PEDOBAPTISM: 

Ts IT FROM WeAYEN OF^OF M.EN 



CHAPTER I 



It is simply impossible to overestimate, or to 
state in exaggerated terms, the importance of do- 
ing just what our Master has commanded. To 
study the Scriptures, wherein is recorded his will? 
is, therefore, a laudable undertaking. These should 
be studied, not to support a preconceived theory, 
but that by prayer, earnest, fervent, and by patient 
labor, the truth may be reached and the Master's 
will known. To the Bible all theories, confessions, 
and creeds should be made to bend. In this spirit 
— our motto being 'Hhe Bible, and the Bible alone, 
is the religion of Protestants " — let the question 
asked be put to the test. It is no time now for 
harsh words or unpleasant epithets, much less for 
sophistry. The inquiry now is what has our Savior 
commanded? To do that when Iihowyl^ and only 
that^ whatever be the consequences, whether per- 

(0) 



10 PEDOBAPTISM ! 

secutions by fines, by stripes, by imprisonment or 
by death, is honorable indeed, and brings with it 
the approbation and the blessing of the Master. 

The followers of Christ have suffered martyr- 
dom, not more for doing what he commands than 
for refusing to do what he did not command, and 
what they regarded as an encroachment upon his 
ordinance. Did Christ command the baptism of 
'' believers and tlieir infant GhildrenV Answer, 
and act accordingly in the fear of God. Loyalty 
to Christ is the first thing. 

While here and there you find a few bold men 
who are advancing some new theories of infant 
baptism, yet the old and oft-repeated arguments in 
its favor are still being repeated again and again, 
and are emphasized with fresh vigor all over this 
land. And to many they are from various causes 
perfectly conclusive. The following, from Dr. Alvah 
Hovey, in the Baptist Quarterly (for April, 1875, 
p. 137), is a brief but correct summary of the ar- 
guments : 

''Baptism is still said to have taken the place of circum- 
cision, the seal of the Abraliamic covenant being changed, 
but not the covenant itself. The Christian Church is still 
said to be a continuation of the Jewish Church, modeled 
after it in the quality of its members, part of them being 
introduced as believers and part oF them as unbelievers. 
The households that were baptized by Paul are still sup- 
posed to have included infants who received the holy rite 
with their believing parents, for may not every household 
have an infant in it '^ The language of Christ in blessing 
little children is still believed to authorize the baptism of 
infants, for is not any one whom Christ blesses entitled to 
baptism ? The w^ords of Paul in respect to the children 
of the Corinthian Christians ' but now arc they holy ' are 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 11 

still supposed to prove that those children were infant 
members of the Church in Corinth, though the supposition 
makes the reasoning of Paul wholly illogical. The practice 
of infant baptism in the third century is still thought to 
imply its apostolic character, though the practice of im- 
mersion at that time, as the only con^lete rite, is thought 
tobe a perversion, superstitious, if not immodest (Coleman). 
And the natural desire of Christian parents to have their 
children in covenant with Grod is still supposed to justify, 
in some manner, the application of baptism to them, though 
it is difficult to see why the same argument would not jus- 
tify the baptism of all whom Christians long to have saved 
from endless woe — that is to say, the baptism of all man- 
kind." 

The frequency and the zeal with which these 
arguments are repeated, demand that their refuta- 
tion, SO often made, be made again. With this in 
mind your candid attention is asked to the follow- 
ing pages. 

It is by no means easy to learn even from those 
by whom the rite is practiced and defended, just 
what is the purpose of infant baptism, or what is 
the exact status of baptized children. If they die 
in infancy are the}^ more likely to be saved than 
those who die of the same age unbaptized? Do 
they enjoy a single promise not equally enjoyed 
by the unbaptized children of believing parents — 
perhaps their older or younger brothers and sisters ? 
Certainly not. Are infants regenerated, '' made 
children of God and heirs of gloiy" by their bap- 
tism? Some Pedobaptists respond yes, while oth- 
ers, with equal emphasis, respond no, and of course 
the latter are right. Does their baptism make 
them members of the church? The contrary an- 
swers given to this by Pedobaptists are, they 



12 PEDOBAPTISM : 

are baptized to bring them into the church, and 
they are baptized because they are already in the 
church. It is evident, however, that baptized chil- 
dren (infants) are not treated as church-members. 
They are not disciplined as other members are ; 
they are not allowed to commune as other mem- 
bers are ; they are not permitted to participate in 
the general privileges of the church as other mem- 
bers are. What possible benefit, therefore, can 
they reap from their baptism ? This is an imperti- 
nent question, if God has commanded the baptism 
of infants. It is simply our duty to obey. These 
are minor questions, therefore, and with them we 
have no concern, except so far as they bear upon 
the leading inquiry : Pedohaptism ; Is it from 
Heaven or of Men ? This is the standing question 
of this little volume. If from Jieaven^ then to 
oppose it, or to disregard it, is to be found fighting 
against God and taking from the sacred word. 

If of men^ then to defend it and to administer it, 
by the authority and into the name of the adora- 
ble Trinity, is to sin grievously and to add to what 
is contained in the Scriptures. The question, 
therefore, is a serious one, for it is a dangerous 
thing to add to or to take from the inspired ora- 
cles. (Revelation xxii. 18, 19.) 

This question must be settled by the New Testa- 
ment. For that is the Christian's only law book, 
and baptism is a New Testament ordinance. Surelj^ 
by its decision every one should be willing to abide. 
To the law and the testimony. And may the Holy 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 13 

Spirit, its Author, guide us into all truth, blessing 
both writer and reader. 

" Father of Light ! hear our feeble cry, and so illu- 
minate our minds by the influence of the Holy Spirit, that, 
with an eye single to thy glory, we may look above all the 
paltry interest of sects and times, and plead the cause of 
truth alone, desiring only the progress of true Christianity 
among the children of men." 

The first baptism mentioned is that of the Har- 
binger, who, as Christ's forerunner, came preaching 
the kingdom of God. The record of his baptism is 
found in three of the evangelists as follows: Mat- 
thew iii. 5-9 ; Mark i. 4, 5 ; Luke iii. 3, 7, 8. By 
reading these narratives carefully you will observe 
the following facts : 

1. Crowds flocked to the baptism of John. 

2. Descent from Abraham gave no one a pass to 
the baptismal waters. 

3. Of all who were baptized John demanded re- 
pentance, nay, more, evidence of their repentance]; 
'^ Bring forth fruit meet for" (suitable, agreeable 
to) ''repentance." 

4 All admitted to baptism were baptized of 
him " in Jordan confessing their sins." Do not 
these simple facts, discernible to even the super- 
ficial reader, utterly exclude infants from the sub- 
jects of John's baptism? 

The epitome of John's baptism, given by Paul 
in Acts xix. 4, only adds strength to strength : 

" Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism 
of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should be- 
lieve on him which should come after him, that is on Christ 
Jesus." 



14 PEJDOBAPTISM : 

In addition to demanding of his hearers that 
they should repent, he also demanded faith in a 
coming Messiah. Were infants among John's 
hearers ? Did he demand of infants that they 
should repent and bring forth fruit meet for re- 
pentance ? Did he demand of infants that they 
should believe on him that should come, that is, 
on Christ Jesus ? Were infants baptized confessing 
their sins ? To all of these questions you must 
give a positive no, unless an infant be capable of 
doing all these things. There were no infants bap- 
tized, therefore, by the first Baptist. 

In John iii. 22 ; iv. 1, 2, is all we have recorded 
of the baptizing done by Christ and his disciples 
during his ministry. What his disciples did in his 
name was said to be done by him. The only point 
in this, that is pertinent here, is, ''that Jesus made 
and baptized more disciples than John." Individ- 
uals were first made disciples^ and then received 
baptism. There is a manifest diff'erence between 
mahing disciples and haptizing them. As infants 
could not be made disciples they did not receive 
baptism. Why give to an infant the badge of dis- 
cipleship, when it has not been made a disciple ? 
This record, like the other, is not only silent about 
but utterly excludes infant baptism. The brevity 
of these narratives is only equaled by the explic- 
itness of their statement of the subjects admitted 
to the ordinance of baptism in the days of John 
the Baptist, and the ministry of Christ. 

One other passage deserves attention here, and 
simply because some — only a very few- — Pedobap- 



IS IT FR03I HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 15 

tist consider it as supporting the dogma of infant 
baptism. 

No one would ever think of pausing here, except 
hailed by a Pedobaptist. And stopping, we find, as 
will be presently seen, that they are disputing over 
this passage, as they are in fact over every passage 
ever quoted in favor of the practice ; some claim- 
ing, while many more discard it, as supporting the 
infant rite. 

Reference is had to Matthew xix. 13-15, with its 
parallel passages in Mark x. 13-16, and Luke xviii. 
15-17. It requires no close study of the passage to 
show that the argument founded upon it is base- 
less. In fact it is refuted by simply a careful read- 
ing of the words : 

" Then were brought unto him little children, that he 
should put his hands upon them, and pray ; and his disciples 
rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and 
forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the king- 
dom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and de- 
parted thence." 

What are the facts? Plainly these, and beyond 
them no one can go : 

1. According to a well-known custom among the 
Jews, of bringing their children to receive a bless- 
ing from distinguished rabbis, children were 
brought to Jesus also, for this specific purpose, viz : 
" that he might lay his hands on them, and pray," 
or bless them. Who will add, and for the purpose 
of baptizing them? The inspired record does not; 
and human additions are worthless and dangerous. 

2. The disciples rebuked those who brought 
them. This conduct is unaccountable, if Christ had 



16 PEBOBAPTTSM : 

hitherto been in, the habit of baptizing children, or 
of even receiving them for the purpose mentioned. 
This is prima facie evidence that up to this 
time at least, Pedobaptism was a thing unknown 
among the apostles. 

3. Jesus was displeased, and said, suffer them to 
come. "jH^ called them," says Luke, "unto him." 
Perhaps, at this time, he is going to give an exam- 
ple which his disciples are to follow, and which he 
had not yet taught them, viz : of baptizing infants. 
Don't Pedobaptists wish he had ? 

4. But he did no such thing. He did simply what 
the children were brought to him for — nothing 
more if the divine record can be trusted, viz : "he 
laid his hands on them," or as Mark has it, "he 
took them up in his arms, put his hands on them 
and blessed them," according to the custom already 
mentioned. If it could only be added as a fifth fact, 
that he baptized them, what rejoicing there would 
be among those who baptize infants ! 

But let the impartial reader say whether these 
children were baptized, or only blessed, by our 
Savior, There was a specific thing to be done, and 
this the Savior did — he laid his hands on them, and 
blessed them. Is there anything in all this to 
prove the scripturalness of infant baptism? 

A presiding elder recently remarked in the hear- 
ing of the writer, "Of course these children were 
not baptized because they were Jewish children, 
and having been circumcised would not need to be 
baptized." Of course he knew from logical infer- 
ence {?) that these children were all little hoys^ and 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR qY MEN? 17 

had been circumcised! ! But are there no cases in 
the New Testament, vvhere persons received both 
the rite of circumcision, and the ordinance of bap- 
tism ? How about Christ and Paul and Timothy, 
and the three thousand on the day of Pentecost? 
If a Jewish family should be converted, and apply 
for membership in a Methodist Church, would they, 
or would they not, baptize the circumcised mem- 
bers of the family ? But more of this in another 
chapter. 

It has been argued from the phrase " of such is 
the kingdom of heaven/' that these children, whom 
our Savior blessed, were " members of his visible 
church." And the conclusion is drawn, that being 
in the church infants have a right to baptism. But 
it is wholly gratuitous to assume, that by " the 
kingdom of heaven " is meant the " visible church." 
For this, proof is most earnestly demanded. It is an 
erroneous assumption, born of Pedobaptist reason- 
ing, something like the following: Christ says, these 
children ('' of such is ") are in something; they can 
not be in his spirituaul kingdom, and they were 
not at that time in the kingdom of glory, therefore, 
it must mean " visible church," and they are in 
that. It must be proved first, that the expression 
"kingdom of heaven" is ever used by the inspired 
writers in a single instance, where it must, from 
ahsolicte necessity^ mQ^n the ''visible church" — a 
passage must be produced where it can not possi- 
bly have any other meaning. It must be proved^ 
second, that " the kingdom of heaven," in the pas- 
sages under consideration, must necessarily have 



18 PEDOBAPTISM : 

that meaning; that it can not mean either the 
kingdom of glory or Christ's spiritual kingdom, but 
must of 7iecessity mean the "visible church." The 
question is not what a certain passage of Scripture 
^nay mean, but what does it mean. Prove that in 
this passage the expression can not mean anything 
except " visible church," and so far the argument 
may be of some avail. But this can not be done. 

And, furthennore, even granting that this was its 
meaning, then the phrase " of sicch is the king- 
dom," by no means necessitates the idea that those 
of whom it was spoken were in the kingdom. It 
can have, it does have, another interpretation. If 
not, then the argument would prove too much, and 
would therefore be worthless. If that be the inter- 
pretation, then the passage means that the '^ king- 
dom of heaven/' whether the ''visible church," the 
kingdom of glory, or Christ's spiritual kingdom, is 
composed " of buch*' persons (of infants and young 
children) to the exclusion of persons who are older. 
If the "visible church" is meant, then the "visible 
church,'' in its entirety, and completeness, consists^ 
or is made up, "of such." How preposterous! 
Christ by no means said those children, to whom 
he gave a blessing, were in the kingdom of heaven ; 
this would simply be impossible, if he had reference 
to either his spiritual kingdom, or the kingdom of 
glory. And let it be repeated that it has never 
been proved that "kingdom of heaven" means 
" visible church ; " nor that " of such " means that 
those children were in the kingdom. 

This is all that Christ meant, that those born 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 19 

into his spiritual kingdom, in some respects re- 
sembled children. He refers not so much to chil- 
dren as to childhood. Those born of God are like 
children, not in age, not in physical stature, not in 
moral character, but simply in the characteristics 
of childhood — are gentle, affectionate, docile, con- 
fiding, etc. 

How strikingly and beautifully do the character- 
istics of childhood resemble those born into Christ's 
spiritual kingdom, ''who are born not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
of God." (Johni. 13.) 

Dr. Albert Barnes, who is good authority among 
Presbyterians, speaking on this passage, says: 

" Of such as these — that is, of persons with such tempers 
as these — is the church composed. He (Christ) does not 
say of these infants^ but of such as resemble them, or were 
like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up.'' 

This idea is more fully brought out in Mark and 
Luke : 

" Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the 
kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein/' 

Also in Matthew xviii. 3 : " Except } e be converted, and 
become as little children^ ye shall not enter into the king- 
dom of henven." "And whoso shall offend one of these 
little ones which believe in me," etc. 

Here the resemblance is still presented, and very 
strongly indeed. The passage has nothing to do 
with baptism whatever. 

Blessed be the name of Jesus that he said, " Suf- 
fer little children, and forbid them not, to come 
unto me." With great joy should parents, by early 
instruction, bring their children to him. And none 



20 PEDOBAPTISM : 

are more earnest than the Baptists in proclaiming 
this joyous message of our Savior, But in all this 
there is not one word about infant baptism. 

Dr. Scott, a Pedobaptist, in commenting on this 
passage, sa^^s : " Christ did not order these infants 
to be baptized." Of course not; any one can see 
that. The passage proves absolutely nothing in 
favor of that practice. Olshausen, a distinguished 
German Pedobaptist, in his Commentary, says : * 
" We can not in truth find anywhere a reliable 
proof-text in favor of infant baptism.'' 

Why did he not turn to this passage ? In his 
commentary on this very place, he says: f *'0f 
that reference to infant baptism which it is so com* 
mon to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not 
the slightest trace to he fo%L7idP Other men of 
equal celebrity, and Pedobaptists at that, such as 
Dr. Doddridge, Prof. Jacobi and others, might be 
mentioned to the same effect. In fact, many of the 
most learned Pedobaptists are abandoning this 
passage as offering no support to infant baptism. 
Are Baptists, then, to be charged with dullness and 
stupidity, because they also fail to see here an ar- 
gument for the practice? The argument can not 
be very clear. Passing this text, next comes the 
commission, to be discussed hereafter. 

The entire ministry of Christ has now been ex- 
amined ; and though the church, together with the 
ordinances, have been established, or appointed, 
yet not one word has been said about the baptism 

"••■Quoted in Baptist Short Method. Page 91. 
^Progress Baptist Principles, by Curtis. Page 95, 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 21 

of infants, or of their reception into the church ; nay, 
more, the teaching is wholly at variance with the 
practice. Is it from heaven, or of men ? Says 
Bishop Fuller,"^ a distinguished Pedobaptist author : 
" We do f reel]] confess there is neither express pre- 
cept nor precedent in the Nev) Testament for the 
baptizing of infants,'' Do you believe that? 



*Quoted in Baptist Short Method. Page 89. 



CHAPTER II. 

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you." — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 

This, with its parallels in Mark xvi. 15, 16, and 
Luke xxiv. 46,47, is the Great Commission of our 
Savior to his disciples— the grand '-'Magna Charta^^ 
of his church. Through all his teachings he has 
said not one word about infant baptism, as was 
seen in the preceding chapter. After his death and 
resurrection from the dead, just before he ascended 
to the glory of the Father, he sends his disciples 
into the world with this commission. By this he 
authorizes them to preach the gospel, and to bap- 
tize. And here is the only place, so far as the rec- 
ord shows, where he gave this authority. In this, 
therefore, is contained the whole law of Christian 
baptism. This is the rule. All that come after are 
but examples, and are serviceable to us, simply as 
illustrating and showing how the commission was 
understood by those who received it directly from 
the Master. After all, therefore, here the question 
must he settled. By the commission infant baptism 
must stand or fall. Does it authorize the baptism 
of infants? Did the disciples so understand it? 
And did they, in accordance with this commission^ 

(22) 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 23 

practice infant baptism? Tiiese questions strike 
at the very vitals of our subject, and will therefore 
be answered at length in this and following chap- 
ters. 

If authority to baptize infants be^found in the 
commission, it must be either by a specific, positive 
command, or, at least, by a plain^ tinequivocal^ 
^^ logical inferencer A command you can not find. 

And the only possible way to get any inference 
(one that is plain and logical is simply impossible) 
is to infer that, as nations are to be baptized, and 
infants are a part of nations, therefore infants are 
to be baptized. Is this a plain Hogical inference ?^' 
It may, it does, suit some, but not Baptists surely. 
The following is a similar specimen of logic : '' The 
wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the na- 
tions that forget God." Therefore, as infants are a 
part of the all nations^ they will — according to this 
logic — be turned into hell. Is this conclusion ad- 
missible? Baptists with one breath exclaim. No ! 
What say Pedobaptists ? The logic is precisely the 
same. 

'* 'Are not infants a part of the all nations spoken 
of in the commission?* Certainly they are ; and so 
are drunkards, and liars, and swearers, and whore- 
mongers, and infidels, and atheists, and idolaters, 
and every wicked and abominable person, upon the 
face of the earth ; and if the phrase ' all nations' 
includes infants, so it does the others, and there is 
just the same warrant for the baptism of one as the 
other ; that is, no warrant at allP The same infer- 



24 PEDOBAPTISM : 

ence that would baptize the babe would also bap- 
tize each and all of these classes. 

There must surely be something wrong in the 
logic, which infers infants to perdition^ and per- 
sons of such character to the ordinance of Christian 
haptism, Tfiose who can, may accept it, but Bap- 
tists can not. And, in fact, neither can the more 
learned Pedobaptists. E. ^., when Kev. 0. W. 
Miller, a prominent Methodist preacher in Ken- 
tucky, published a book, in which he used this 
logic, claiming by it to have found a command to 
baptize infants, he was promptly met and responded 
to by Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, editor of the Southern 
(Methodist) Revieio,^ who is a man of master mind, 
and wields not only a ready, but a mighty pen. 
The following is a part of his reply in the Heviewy'f 
showing that he will not accept such logic, though 
it comes from a Methodist, and that, too, in support 
of a doctrine he believes : 

*' Take tlie command, for example, ^ Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature.^ (Mark xvi. 
16) Now here nhe class is' every creature But stocks 
and stones and dumb brutes are '- a part of the class. ' Shall 
we then, in obedience to Mr. Miller's logic, preach the gos- 
pel to stocks and stones and dumb brutes? Ileason and 
common sense forbid. These compel us, in spite of his 
logic, to limit the preaching of the gospel, first to human 
beings, and then to that portion of the class, thus limited, 
who are capable of hearing and understanding the gospel." 

After giving several other examples on the same 
page, he continues : 



*This Review will be frequently quoted hereafter. It is published 
in St. Louis, under the auspices of the M. E. Church South. But 
the editor, one of the brightest lights in that church, resides in 
Baltimore, Md. t For July 1874, p. 176. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 25 

^' Not to multiply similar instances , as we miglit do ad 
injinitum^ we conclude witli this one : ' The Lord said unto 
Joshua, 3Jake thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the 
children of Israe2 the second time. (Joshua v. 2.) Here 
the ' class is' the children of Israel. But yet, instead of 
applying this command to 'all the children of Israel/ 
every reader of the Bible limits it to male children, in con- 
formity with the well-known custom of the Jews," 

So the '' all nations" in the commission must be 
limited to those who have been made disciples, who, 
having heard the gospel, have lelieved on the 
Savior which it offered. 

Pedobaptists must show, here, either ^ positive,, 
specific command to baptize infants, or, at least, a 
plain, ^''logical inference^^ which will support the 
practice, and yet be in perfect keeping with the 
entire teaching of God's word. It is just to demand 
this ; and, until they comply, they are cliargeable 
with "teaching for doctrine the commandments of 
men." Baptists are not, as is sometimes charged, 
afraid of inferences. They will accept such an one 
as is here demanded — but no other — whenever it 
is produced. 

But, indeed, Dr. Wall and many other eminent 
Pedobaptists cordially admit that the commission 
does not ordain infant baptism. When they sur- 
render the commission, all is surrendered. (See 
Chapter IV.) Dr. Wall, in the preface to his ''His- 
tory of Infant Baptism" (page 29), as quoted by 
John L. Waller, ^^ says, in this commission, '* that 
there is no particular direction given what they 
were to do in reference to the children of those 



*In Western Baptist Review^ Vol. I. p. 162. 



26 TEDOBAPTISM : 

that received faith, and araong all those persons 
that are recorded as baptized by the apostle, there 
is no express mention of any infants/' And, turn- 
ing from the New Testament as insufficient to es- 
tablish who are the subjects of a New Testament 
ordinance, he builds his argument for infant bap- 
tism on Jewish-proselyte baptism. Surely that is 
a sandy foundation, for many of the ablest Pedo- 
haptist loriters^ the world has ever known, have 
denied most emphatically, that there was any such 
thing as Jewisli-proselyte baptism. 

And Dr. Bledsoe, showing that nothing is found 
in the commission in favor of the rile, says: ^'In 
fact, one of the very best works ever written in 
favor of infant baptism — namel}', the work of Dr. 
Samuel Miller, of Princeton, does not draio asiiKjle 
argument ixovn Matthew xxviii. 19"^ — that is, from 
the commission. From these facts, is it not per- 
fectly evident that the commission does not author- 
ize the practice? That so far as the commission 
is concerned, Pedobaptism is not from heaven? 
And yet this is our only authority to l)aptize% Bear 
that in mind. But, furthermore, the commission, 
given by our Savior as the law of Christian bap- 
tism, not only does not authorize the bapticim of 
. infants, but absolutely excludes them as subjects of 
that ordinance. 

In commanding the baptism of believers, the com- 
mission EXCLUDES THE BAPTISM OF ALL OTHER CLASSES-— 
VfHETHER IDIOTS, UNBELIEVERS OR INFANTS. 

. ^^ Southern Review^ for July, 1874, 177, 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 27 

That the Savior does, here, command to baptize 
believers, no one will for a moment call in question, 
unless perchance he has a purpose to serve. It is 
universally admitted that a believer in the Lord 
Jesus Christ is a scriptural subject for Christian 
baptism. In Mark's version of this same commis- 
sion, it is said, ''he that believeth and is baptized," 
etc., evidently connecting faith with, and giving it 
a priority to baptism. From these parting words 
of the Master, both Baptists and Pedobaptists get 
their authority for the practice of believer's baptism. 
That it is specified in tJiis commission will notj 
therefore, he denied. 

And this very specification excludes, forever, the 
baptism of infants. But you say, '' Christ did not 
forbid it." Was it necessary for Christ to com- 
mand, thou shalt not baptize unbelievers — infidels, 
or atheists, or liars, or adulterers, etc.? thou shalt 
not baptize idiots; thou shalt not baptize houses; 
thou slialt not baptize dumb brutes; thou shalt not 
baptize bells ; thou shalt not baptize infants, and 
so on through the whole range of created things? 
Most assuredly not. It w^as only necessary for him 
to specify or m.ention one class, which he did in 
commanding lelievers to be baptized. And by that 
specification all other classes, infants just as eff'ect- 
ually as the rest, are excluded. By the command, 
baptize helievers^ infant baptism is as really forbid- 
den as was au}^ one of the classes named above. 
This is in accordance with a very common law 
maxim taken from Blackstone, and in every-day 
use, viz: "7%^ expression of one thing is the ex- 



28 PED0BAPTI8M : 

elusion of another.''^ The correctness of this prin- 
ciple will not be called in question by any one. 
Many examples illustrating it, both in and out of 
the Bible, will at once occur to the thoughtful 
reader. One will be given, viz: the command to 
offer the paschal lamb. (See Exodus xii.) There 
was no need of God saying to Moses, you must not 
take a heifer; you must not take a lamb that has 
blemish, or one that is two or three years old; you 
must not get a female ; you must not put the blood 
inside the house, etc. But when he commanded, 
take a lamb — of the first year — a male — without 
blemish, that the blood be put on the two side-posts, 
and on the upper door-posts, etc. — every thing else 
was excluded, except just what lie had ?wpecified in 
his command — as much so as if he had forbidden 
each one of the particulars by name. 

Now apply this principle, universally recognized 
as true, to the commission, where we have heliev- 
er''s haptism mentioned^ specifiGally and positively 
GommandecL What, then, becomes of all other 
baptisms ? The conclusion is irresistible — they are 
excluded — that of infants with the rest. 

Did Christ, by his command to baptize those 
that believe in him, forbid the baptism of all un- 
believers, of idiots, and of base, immoral persons, 
of stocks or stones, of houses or bells ? Then did 
he also just as effectually, and as truly, forbid also 
the baptism of infants. It is, therefore, excluded 
from the commission. By what law? By the law 
of Him who ^'is over all, God blessed forever." 
There is no rack of interpretation, by which a law 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF :MEN ? 29 

to baptize believers, can be tortured to include 
the baptism of the unconscious babe. Even Dr. 
Hibbard, who has been called the Carson of Meth- 
odism, in his '* Christian Baptism," p. 236, admits, 
as quoted by Dr. Pendleton,^ that "a command to 
baptize helievers is no authority for baptizing m- 
fantsP Certain]}^, then, the commission is '* no 
authority for baptizing infants," for it is '* a com- 
mand to baptize believers." Such is the decision 
even of this distinguished Pedobaptist. 

"It ma}'' be more satisfactory to present the ar- 
gument in syllogistic form. Here it is: 'A com- 
mand to baptize helievers is no authority for 
baptizing infants^ The commission contains a 
command to baptize believers; therefore, the com- 
mission is no authority for baptizing infants/'f 
These premises are admitted, and you can not re- 
ject the conclusion. Then " the commission of 
Christ to the apostles in requiring them to baptize 
disciples, believers, prohibits in effect the baptism 
of all others. It will not do to say we are not for- 
bidden in so many words to baptize infants. The 
same ma}^ be said of unbelievers ; aye, of houses, 
and cattle, and bells.'' 

You ask, however, '' could not Christ have given 
another commission which would have authorized 
the baptism of infants ?" Certainly he could. But 
did he do it? The fact, thai infants are excluded 
from this commission, does not preclude his giving 
another. But who has ever found that other com- 



*" Three Pveasons," p. 15. tSame, p 16. 



30 PEDOBAPTISM : 

mission, wherein infant baptism is commanded? 
In what chapter and verse of the New Testament 
do yoit find it? What rejoicing there would be if 
Pedobaplists could point their finger to one single 
chapter or verse in all the New Testament, and say, 
liere it is, a plain command to baptize "believers 
and their infant children." The very welkin would 
be made to ring with the outbursts of their joy, as 
they would exclaim ^^ Eureka! EureTtaP'^ And no 
one could blame them. But there is no such place, 
nor one that even hints at any such thing. (See 
Chapter VL) Here, and here alone, is the author- 
ity to baptize, and by this commission no authority 
is given to baptize the unconscious babe. 

And, furthermore, if a command were found in 
the Bible to baptize infants, tliat would not do 
away with tliis commission. It would still require 
that they, even those baptized in infancy, be bap- 
tized when they become believers in the Lord 
Jesus. Or, as the great Carson puts it: 

^' Tliis commission, to baptize believers, does not indeed 
imply that it is impossible that another commission might 
have been given to baptize infants, but, by necessity, it ex- 
cludes them forever from being included in this command. 
If inTants are baptized, it is from another commission ; and 
it is another baptism founded on another principle. But 
not only does this commission exclude infmts irom the 
bapt sm it enjoins; if there were even another commiss on 
enjoining the b sptism of infants when these infants, who 
have been baptized in infancy recording to this supposed 
se'cond commission, bel eve the gospel they must be b -p- 
tized according to this commission (Matthew xxviii. ID), 
without any regard to their baptism in infancy. The com- 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 31 

mission commands all men to be baptized on believing tlie 
gospel."^ 

To the candid it must be evident that this bap- 
tism, by its very command, is limited to believers, 
those who are made disciples. And this will be 
corroborated by a further examination of the com- 
mission, in the following chapter. 

Unconscious infants can not believe, and, there- 
fore, from necessity they are excluded from baptism. 
This chapter will be closed by the following c[uota- 
tion from Dr. J. M. Pendleton :f 

" I know it will be said, for it has been said a thousand 
times, that if infants are not to be baptized because they 
can not believe, they can not be saved because they can 
not believe. If the salvation of infants depends on their 
faith, they can not be saved. They are iccapable of faith. 
They are doubtless saved through the mediation of Christ, 
but it is not by faith. It seems to me that our opponents 
egregiously fail to accomplish their object in urging this 
objection to our view. They must intend to make us ad- 
mit the propriety of infant baptism, or force us to a denial 
of infant salvation. We make neither the admission nor 
the denial. As soon as we sny that infants are not saved 
by f itli, but without faith, their objection is demolished.'' 



*His Work on Baptism, p. 170. f-'^ Three Keasons," p. 19, 



CHAPTER III 



Infants are utterly incapable of being the sub- 
jects OF A SINGLE ONE OP THE THREE THINGS WHICH 

THE COMMISSION ENJOINS, and of coursG, tliereCore, 
they are necessarily excluded from it, and from the 
baptism it enjoins. Kead carefully again the 
words of the Master as given in Matthew xxviii. 
19, 20 ; Mark xvi. 16, and Luke xxiv. 46, 47. These 
are the different versions of the great commission 
given by our Savior to his disciples. 

What is enjoined in this commission? The an- 
swer is found in the language of Dr. George Camp- 
bell, a distinguished Presbyterian of Scotland. In 
his notes on this passage, he says : 

" There are manifestly three things which our Lord here 
distinctly enjoins his apostles to execute with regard to the 
nations, ^o-i(;i^ ; Matlieteuine^ haptizine^ dida shine] that is, 
to CONVERT them to tliefaith^ to initiate the converts mto the 
church by baptism, and to instruct the baptized in ail the 
duties of the Christian life." 

Noticing the emphasized words,Avould any one sup- 
pose, that either of the things enjoined could have 
for its sulject an unconscious infant? Could an 
unintelligent babe be converted to the fait/i f Or 
could it be among the converts "initiated" into the 
church by baptism? Or could it be among the 

lavtized converts who were to be instructed in all 

(32) 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 33 

the duties of the Christian life ? Please pardon 
the asking of such simple questions, for the theory 
here opposed makes it necessary to ask them. It 
is proposed to take each injunction of the commis- 
sion separately, and to ask if that can be executed 
with regard to an infant. 

The Savior commands that the disciples go, and 
firsts '' Teach all nations,'' or as Mark gives it, 
^^ Preach the gospel to every creature." The word 
" teach," it will be observed, is used twice in Mat- 
thew's version of the commission. In the original, 
two words are used, and evidently mean different 
things. The question now before us is simply this, 
What is meant by the word " teaoTi!!' as first used, 
which is a translation of the Greek word {mathe- 
teiio) ? 

By the advocates of Pedobaptism, i. ^., some of 
them, it has been argued that the word {mathe- 
teuo^ here rendered teach) means simply to enroll 
as scholars, as a parent would assign, his children 
to a school, and that, therefore, it does not mean 
to teach, and may in that sense be applied to in- 
fants as well as to adults. 

But the simple fact that the word in the King 
James translation is rendered teaoh is veiy strong 
presumptive evidence that it involves the idea of 
instruction. That the w^ord, although its full 
meaning is not expressed by the English word 
teach^ does involve the idea of instruclion ; that it 
means to mahe disciples ly instvuction^ i, e.^ ly 
pveacliing the gospel, is most itnquestionaUy true^ 
and is sustained hy the very 'best authority among 



34 PEDOBAPTISM I 

Pedohaptist soholars^ In fact, this is denied only 
by those who have felt that their cause was in a 
desperate condition. That such is the meaning of 
the word will appear, however, from the following 
considerations : 

1. The word {matheteuo) is used only four times 
in the New Testament, and in each of the other 
three places, is Ihnited -necessai'ily to adults-^ and 
necessiates the idea of instruction. 

" Every scribe who is instructed (matheteutheis) unto 
the kingdom of heaven, is Uke iinto a man that is a house- 
holder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new 
and old." (Matthew xiii. 52.) ^^A rich man of Arimathea, 
named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple (ematlie- 
tense)''' (Matthew xxvii. 57.) '^ And when they had 
preached the gospel to that city, and had taught {inathe- 
teusanies) many," etc. (Acts xiv. 21.) 

Paul and Barnabas, acting under this very com- 
mand of Jesus, preached the gospel to the people 
of Derbe, and by their preaching many were made 
disciples. In these three instances the force of 
the verb [matlieteuine) can not be mistaken. No 
one will den}'', that in these cases it refers to adults 
alone, and, at least, involves the idea of instruction. 
And it is scarcely possible that the word would be 
used in a different sense in the only remaining 
place, where it is found in the New Testament, 
and that, too, as it is used by Matthew, the same 
author, who makes use of it in two of the other 
places. 

2. The word here used by our Savior is a deriva- 
tive word, which being traced to its origin gives 
the same meaning. It comes from a uoun [matJi- 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 35 

etes)^ which all through the New Testament ia 
translated disciple. This is its uniform meaning 
and translation. And notwithstanding this noun 
disciple {mathetes) is found in the New Testament 
about two hundred and sixty-four times^ yet not 
even once is it so used as that unintelligent infants 
could be included. 

This is significant in its bearing upon our sub- 
ject; but not at all singular. For this noun itself 
is derived from another Greek verb {raanthano)^ 
which is always used in the sense of learning, and 
of being taught or instructed ; and is defined by 
Pickering, in his Greek Lexicon, as follows : " To 
learn^ understand^ to seek to learn or inquire 
dbout^'^ etc. It seems to carry the idea of impart- 
ing instruction where inquiry is made. It is well 
to keep before our minds that from whatever side 
the word {matJieteno) in the commission is ap- 
proached, infants are by its very meaning excluded, 
as incapable of being its subjects. 

3. As lexicons are based upon the use of words, 
depending upon that for their definitions, of course 
this word will be defined by them in harmonj^ with 
its use as pointed out above. Hence, we have the 
following definitions, from the very best authorities, 
given to this word [inailicteuo). 

Pickering — '' To teach, to he a scholar P 

Liddell and Scott—** To make a disciple of any 
one, N. T.: pass. To he instructed^ 

Robinson's Lexicon of N. T.Greek — '-'To disciple. 
To train as a disciple^ to teach^ to instruct'^'' 



36 PEDOBAPTISM : 

Sophocles. — ''76> he a mailietesP "2. To make 
a disciple of\ to instvucV 

This authority and these definitions will not be 
questioned by any one capable of judging. 

4. AVith such testimony belbre you, as to the 
meaning of the word, you can not miss the mean- 
ing of our Savior when he gave this command, ^" Go 
teacli all nations." Nor are you surprised when it 
is said: The almost unanimous rendering of these 
words by commentators and translators is, '-^ mahe 
disciples of [from among] all nations," which was 
to be done by such instruction as was imparted in 
preaching the gospel. Adam Clarke, on this, says : 
'' Make disciples of all nations, hring them to an 
acquaintance with Godicho hoitght them^ and then 
haptize them^'^ etc. '-'- It is natural^'' he adds, in 
view of this fact, '' to suppose that adults were the 
first subjects of haptisinP 

Grotius, a learned German commentator, as 
quoted by Mr. Alexander Campbell,^ says : Mathe- 
teuo "means to communicate the fi^rst or element- 
ary princi'ples^ and then after haptiziny those who 
receive these rudimental views^ teach {didasho) or 
introduce them as persons initiated into the higher 
branches of Christian doctrine." 

Dr. George Campl}el], in his translation of the 
New Testament, renders this hj^^ convert the na- 
tions^ And then in his notes on it says : ^- Wynne 
m saying ' make disciyles^ has hit exactly the 
sense of matheteuo !''' And further says that here he 

*Lex. Debate, p. 367. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 37 

(Campbell) has used the word '^ converV^ in the 
same sense. This translation necessitates in the 
word the ideas both oiinstruction and pe7'stcasion — 
the only means by which persons could be converted. 

Other Pedobaptist authority might be given, but 
let these suffice. 

This construction of the text agrees with the 
language of Mark: '-^ Preacli the gospel to every 
creature ;" and of Luke, ^' that repentance and re- 
mission of sins sJiould he preached in his name 
among all nations." 

Surely Richard Baxter,^ one of the most pious 
Pedobaptists that ever lived, had the spirit as well 
as the meaning of these men when he wrote the 
following interpretation of this passage: 

'- By the first teaching or making disciples^ that must go 
hefore baptism, is meant the convincing of the world that 
Jesus is the Christ, the true Messiah, anointed of Grod 
with fullness of grace, and of the Spirit without measure, 
and sent to be the Savior and Redeemer of the world ; and 
when tlieg loere brought to acknowledge this^ then they were 
to baptize them,^^ etc. 

He also says : 

" Matlieteuo means to preach the gospel to all nations, and 
to engage them to believe it^ in order to their profession of 
that faith by baptism.^ ^ 

Such is the meaning of the word as defined by 
even Pedobaptists themselves. Now, is it possible 
to apply this word to an infant ? Is it possible for 
an unintelligent babe to be the subject of what is 
expressed in the word metheteuo (here rendered 

^Campbell and Kice Lex. Debate, p. 381. 



38 PEDOBAPTISM : 

teach) — to be instructed^ persuaded^ l)roicglit to an 
acqitaintance with Ood^ to he made a disciple hy 
the preaching of the gospel f Most assuredly not. 
From the very meaning of the word, as understood 
by Pedobaptists, infants can not be made disciples. 
And, as we have seen, the word (disciple) is nowhere 
used so as to include the infant; but,rather, the word 
[mathetes ) of which it is a translation entirely pre- 
cludes any such idea — a habe he a learner .^ox a hahe 
he a disciple^ how monstrously absurd ! ^' If any man 
[man is supplied, any 07ie] will come after me 
[will be my disciple], let him deny himself, and 
take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew xvi. 
24) ''And w^iosoever doth not bear his cross, 
and come after me, can not be my disciple/' (Luke 
xiv. 27.) Can an infant deny itself? Can it take up, 
and bear its cross ? Can it follow Christ ? You must 
answer ?io. Then it can not he Chrisfs disciple. 
It is to no purpose to urge that they were made 
disciples by baptizing them. How trivial this often 
repeated objection appears in view of what has 
been already written! And, further, if infants are 
made disciples by baptism, so are adults. Is it 
possible, that by baptism an individual is made a 
heliever or a disciple^ when he must be that beiore 
he receives the ordinance ? And ''if j)ersons are 
made helievers or disciples by baptizing, why re- 
quire faith of adults in order to their admission to 
the ordinance, seeing they would receive faith by 
being baptized ? And let us carry out this doc- 
trine; and since the thing may be done, let us 
look at the result of its operation. An infidel, by 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 39 

being baptized, becomes • a believer in Jesns ! 
Idolaters and Jews, as was done by order of some 
of the Roman emperors and of Charlemagne, being 
taken by force and baptized, become disciples! 
Those infants in Germany who, not long since, 
were torn from the arms of their Baptist parents, 
and baptized by order of the civil magistrates, 
were made disciples of Christ! The untold, 
millions of the unconverted [some of them the 
basest of the baser sort], now living and that have 
lived, who were baptized in infancy, were all made, 
by their baptism, disciples or believers!! And a 
Turk, a worshiper of Juggernaut, or of Boodh, 
would become a disciple by simply baptizing him!'' 
If an infant is a disciple, it is an untaught^ uiihe- 
liemng disciple! ! 

Wliat a solecism ! '' Oh the follies of infant 
baptism ! Your name is legion !" 

Paul rejoiced in making disciples^hui. was thank- 
ful that so few were hapiized by him at Corinth. 
He was sent to the Gentiles, commissioned "to 
open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness 
to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, 
that they may receive Ibrgiveness of sins, and 
inheritance among them which are sanctiHed by 
faith that is in me." (Acts xxvi. 18 ) Paul was 
sent to make disciples^ not by baptizing, but by 
preaching the gospel of the grace of God, which 
he preached so fervently and in which he always re- 
joiced. He distinctly declares : ''Christ sent me not 
to baptize, but to prt^ach the gospel."' (1 Corinthians 
i. 17.) To preach the gospel and to make disciples 



40 PEDOBAPTISM : 

was one thing, while to baptize them was alto- 
gether another thing, in the sight of this grand old 
apostle. He but imitated his Master who made 
and haptized disciples — first making men disciples, 
and then giving them the badge of discipleship. 
Baptists have ever been satisfied to follow in the 
wake of their Master and his immediate and in- 
spired apostles ; and, therefore, they have never 
practiced the baptizing of unconscious infants. 
Baptists, by preaching the gospel, make disciples, 
and then baptize them. 

Again, the second injunction of the commission 
is to adininister the ordinance of CTivistian hap- 
tism. ^''Baptizing them into the name^'' etc. 

''Baptizing them." — Whom? Evidently those 
previously made disciples. 

If all the nations were made disciples.) or 
became believers in the Lord Jesus, then all the 
nations were to be baptized. But if not, then only 
that part of the nation were to be baptized, who 
were made disciples by the preaching of the gospel. 
It has been shown above that the ''all nations" must 
be understood in a limited sense, or we are forced to 
conclusions so absurd that no one will accept them. 
So far as the grammatical construction of the sen- 
tence is concerned, "^ the relative pronoun ^Hhem'^ 
{autoits, although of the masculine gender), may 
have lor its antecedent either the ^'o^Z? nations''' [eth- 
na^ which is neuter gender), or the noun disciples^ 
which, although not .expressed in the preceding 
clause, j^et is supposed and understood in the verb 

* Winer's Greek Grammar of N. T., pp. 141, 146. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 41 

{matJieteusat(') "- teach,'' or make disciples. Which- 
ever be the case, Christ himself has most certaiu- 
iy, by the verb teach^ or make disciples, limited 
the''-a./Z nations^'- so far as it contains the parties 
to be baptized, and is referred to by the pronoun 
'' them'' And the true sense seems, then, to be, 
that it (the pronounj looks to the ^' all nations " as 
its antecedent — 1)111 to the ^^ all nations'^'' as limited 
hy Christ with the Vcrh '^ teach.''' 

In pointing out the subjects for baptism, the 
pronoun {'-'-them'''') refers, therefore, no more to in- 
fants, who are, indeed, a part of the "all nations," 
hut who can not he made disciples^ than to drunk- 
ards and liars, infidels and atheists, or idiots even ; 
all of whom are a part of the " all nations," but 
who have not been made disciples of the Lord 
Jesus Christ — that is, are not believers, rejoicing 
in the hope of the glory of God. Again, therefore, 
we are shut up to believer's baptism ; while in- 
fants are excluded by necessity. 

Bat furthermore, infants are utterly incapahle 
of receiving the ordinance of Christian haptism. 
It is not meant that infants can not be immersed as 
was formerly done, or sprinkled as is now done by 
Pedobaptists ; but that an infant can not be bap- 
tized, as Christ commanded that ordinance to be 
administered. This commission is our only author- 
ity for baptizing anyone; and consequently this 
is our only baptismal formula. And instead of 
its authorizing the baptism of infants, it rather 
excludes them from that ordinance. 



42 PEDOBAPTISM : 

^^Baptizing tliem " — but why stop, that does not 
finish the command? Eead it through, and see if 
it does not exclude infants. ''Baptizing then into 
the name of tJis Father ^ and of the Son^ and of the 
Holy SjpiTitr These words, while they give a 
command to baptize believers^ at the same time 
cut up^infant baptism '^ root and branch.'^ What 
is meant by ''baptizing into the name^' etc.? Truly, 
it signifies that the act is done by the authority of 
the Triune God. And he who baptizes an infant 
by this formula — and no other is used — says, by 
the action, he does it by the anthority of the 
adorable Trinity, But Pedobaptists have never 
shown that authority to the world — if they have 
ever found it. "Who hath required this at your 
hands?" 

But the expression, " 'baptized into the namep 
has another signification, and one that is exceed- 
ingly suggestive and impressive. 

Surely, no one will object it those who defend 
the practice of Pedobaptism be allowed to tell 
what that signification is. Their testimony there- 
fore will be given. 

Robinson, in his Greek Lexicon, says : 

^- To be BAPTIZED INTO (haptizo eis) a person or the 
name of a person, is to be baptized into a profession of 
faith in and sincere obedience to the person,''^ 

Baptism by this formula, therefore, is ^profession 
of faith in and a pledge of sinotre obedience to the 
Trinity. But an infant has no faith ; can maiio no 
profession ; can not pledge obedience. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 43 

Moses Stuart, as quoted by the Western Baptist 
Revitio,^ says: 

" The word baptize may be followed by a person or a 
thing (doctrine) which has eh before it. In the first case, 
when it is followed by a person, it means by the sacred rite 
of baptism, to hind ones self to he a disciple or follower of a 
person^ to receive or ohey his laws ^ ^ ^ or it means to 
acknowledge him as Sovereign. Lor d^ and Sanctifier. E g.^ 
Matthew xxviii. 19," i e., the commission. 

Can one word of all this be npplied to an unin- 
telligent babe? When baptized into the name^ 
does the infant express any profession of faith? 
Does it bind itsdf to be a disciple or a follower? 
Does it, thereby, ohligate itself to ohey the doc- 
trines and the latvs of Christ ? Does it acknowl- 
edge the Trinity, claiming the Father as its Sover- 
eign, the Son as its Lord, the Holy Spirit as its 
Sanctifier ? 

To ask these questions of an intelligent person, 
is to answer them in the negative. And yet the 
infant must do this in being admitted to the ordi- 
nance of Christian baptism! With this formula 
infants are baptized! Could anything be more 
supremely absurd ? 

In his commentary on this passage, Dr. Scott, 
another Pedobaptist, says: 

^'To be baptized, therefore, ^ into the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Grhost/ implies a professed 
dependence on these three divine Persons^ jointly and equally, 
and a devoting of OURSELVES to them as ivorshipers and 
servants.'^ 

r -'S^- Vol. 1. p. 243. 



44 PEDOBAPTISM : 

Every word of this is true. But it is absolutely 
without any meaning in the baptism of infants. It 
is worthy of notice that these distinguished advo- 
cates for infant baptism have not even left room for 
the sponsors. But they tell us truly, that it signifies 
an act done for '^one^s self and a "devoting of 
ourselves'^' to the worship and service of the 
Trinity. 

It is unnecessary to tell an intelligent reader, 
that the words, quoted from Robinson, Stuart and 
Scott, all of whom are Pedobaptists of high rank, 
are, whether so intended or not, the ax laid at the 
root of the tree of Pedobaplism. 

Already its boughs are trembling, and sooner or 
later, beneath the strokes of the glistening steel, it 
must fall. You may immerse the infant, you may 
sprinkle water into its upturned face, smiling in 
beauty before- you ; but never with the least 
shadow of meaning can you baptize an unintelli- 
gent babe, ^^into the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 

Again, there is another fact which, inasmuch as 
it shows that the infant can not receive this ordi- 
nance, may, with propriety, be mentioned in this 
connection. 

*• Baptism is the ansioer of a good conscience to- 
ward Gody (1 Peter iii. 21.) The judgments of 
conscience are based upon a knowledge of actions 
as right or wrong. Like a just judge, the con- 
science gives its decisions, according to the knowl- 
edge of the case, which is obtained by the facts 
presented. But as infants can not have a knowl- 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 45 

edge of their action in baptism, tliey can not have, 
therefore, the answers of a good conscience in re- 
lation to that act. Baptism can not be to them 
the " answer of a good conscience/' but is a nul< 

lity. 

The judgments of conscience, moreover, have 
reference only to a person's own actions. One 
person can have neither a good nor a bad conscience 
in relation to the actions of any other person or 
persons. Baptism, as administered to an infant, 
with a sponsor, is not its own personal act. The 
babe knows nothing about it, and tlierefore can not 
have the answer of a good conscience in reference 
to it. As infants, therefore, cannot know right and 
wrong, and can not have the answer of a good con- 
science in their baptism, neither can they receive 
Christian baptism, for it is '' not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- 
science toward God." An intelligent, conscientious 
young lady, well known to the writer, anxious to 
know if her infant baptism was acceptable obedi- 
ence to Christ, as is the case of every one who loves 
Jesus in sincerity and in truth, was referred to this 
line of argument. After long, earnest and prayerful 
inquiry, reading and conversation with Christian 
friends, she reasoned about as follows: ''My parents 
tell me I was baptized in infancy, but as Christian 
baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward 
God (1 Peter iii. 21), and as I know nothing about 
my infant baptism, and as it was not my own act 
(but the act of my parents), I did not have the an- 
swer of a good conscience toward God, and it, 



46 PEDOBAPTTSM : 

therefore, was not Christian baptism. And, hence, 
I am itnhaptized^ and it is my duty to obey Christ 
in that ordinance." 

What a struggle to tear away from and count as 
a nullity the baptism (?) given by her parents! 
But while she loved them, she loved her Savior 
more. And as a result of that struggle she was soon 
buried with Christ in baptism, and has ever since 
rejoiced in the answer of a good conscience toward 
God. Sometimes it is said iu answer to this, that 
when persons, baptized in infancy, become believ- 
ers, they adopt their infant baptism, and thus make 
it their own act. Were this so, even then it fol- 
lows that they are without baptism, through all 
those intervening years, until the act is so adopted. 
And if they can adopt baptism as the act of their 
parents, and thus make it their own, why not adopt 
any other act, as the worship and the service of 
their parents? This would indeed be serving God 
by proxy! Infant communion, having been intro- 
duced along with infant baptism about the third 
century, has long since been abandoned because 
infants can not discern the Lord's body in that or- 
dinance. So now, infant baptism — its twin-sister — - 
should be abandoned, because infants can not have 
the answer of a good conscience toward God in 
this ordinance. But taking a somewhat different 
view of this passage, the same result is reached. 
The conscience, having been made good in regen- 
eration, demands that we render obedience to 
Christ in the act of baptism. And our baptism is 
the answer or the response given to that demand 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 47 

of a good conscience toward God. No conscience 
is good, nor will it make this demand, previous to 
its being purged from dead works, and purified by 
the blood of Christ. 

The conscience of an infant is not purified, and, 
as the infant has not been regenerated, it is not 
'' a good conscience," and, therefore, it makes no 
demands to which the baptism is an answer. 

The conscience of an infant, moreover, because 
of its own natural weakness, can not make any de- 
mands. To what, then, is the baptism of an infant 
an answer or a response? Echo answers-- What ? 
And further, conscience demands that this act of 
obedience in baptism, as in everything else, shall 
be 2i personal act. It is sheer folly to talk about 
the demands of your conscience being answ^ered or 
satisfied by the acts of some one else! Hence, 
parents can not act for the child in this matter. 
Sponsors are unknown in the New Testament, as 
also in church history for years alter the apos- 
tles. Obedience by proxy is one of the many ab- 
surd inventions of men, necessitated by the exi- 
gencies of Pedobaptism. ^' Every one must give 
an account of 7^^m,96'Z/' unto God.'' That the con- 
science of those baptized in infancy is satisfied and 
approves, in later years, the baptism given them 
by their parents, proves nothing. For w^hat is the 
approbation, or the satisfaction of 2i perverted con- 
science? The perverted conscience of Saul of 
Tarsus approved, while he persecuted the Church 
of Christ. For he verily thought that in doing so 
he did God service. 



48 PEDOBAPTISM : 

Is it not the part of candor to admit that infants 
are incapable of being the subjects of the second 
injunction of the commission — are unable to re- 
ceive the ordinance of Christian baptism ? 

The third thing enjoined is, ^A(^z^ those previously 
made disciples and haptized^ shall he further taught 
in all the commands of Christ. '^Teaching them" 
{i.e.^ihe baptized disciples) ''to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you." 

Of course this can not apply to unintelligent in- 
fants, as they are incapable of being taught. The 
three injunctions of the commission have all been 
considered. Christ commanded, make disciples, 
baptize, and teach. Of these three things, it has 
been seen, not one, (even baptism) can be executed 
upon an infant. It was this fact that lead the great 
German Pedobaptist commentator, Olshausen, after 
stating in his notes on Lydia's household-baptisrn 
(see Chapter V.) that '' tliere is altogether wanting 
any conclusive proof-text for the baptism of chil- 
dren in the age of the apostles," to add the follow- 
ing foot-note : "In the words describing the insti- 
tution of baptism, in Matthew xxviii. 19, the 
connection of matheteuine^ discipling^ with haptiz- 
ine^ haptizing^ and didashine^ appears quite posi- 
tively to oppose the idea that the haptism of chil- 
dren entered at first into the view of Christ.'^' 

Here we have the institution of baptism by 
Christ hiinself^ yet the very things enjoined show, 
as this Pedobaptist says, that Christ had no refer- 
ence to the baptizing of infants. And Neander ^ 

*"Eice and Campbell Debate, p. 395. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 49 

also, the Pedobaptist church historian, says : " It 

IS CERTAIN THAT ChRIST DID NOT ORDAIN [NFANT BAP- 
TISM." How could an honest man, who was a 
reader of the New Tesament, and a writer of 
church history, say otherwise? If Christ did not 
institute it, then it is of men. It might be well to 
state here that the order laid down in the commis- 
sion — make disciples, baptize, and teach — is the 
divine order, given by Christ. And let no one be 
so presumptuous as to think that he can improve 
on the divine plan, and baptize individuals — in- 
fants even — previous to their being at least pro- 
fessed disciples. 

This is the natural order, too. For who, of their 
own will and choice, will submit to Christ's com- 
mand, to be baptized, until they become Christ'-s 
disciples — until they love him? "-If ye love me, 
keep my commandments," is the test which Christ 
laid down for all. Obedience, to be acceptable to 
him, must be willing and personal, and must spring 
from a heart that loves, '' And every one that 
loveth is born of God.""^ Whenever it is necessarj'-, 
in order to support a given theory, to transpose 
the words of Scripture, the correctness of the 
theory itself may well be suspected. Pedobaptism, 
to be sustained, demands not only a change in the 
order of the words in Christ's command, but a per- 
version of the very words he used in giving that 
command. 

No one will gainsay the soundness, the natural- 
ness and scripturalness of the following paraphrase, 

*^l John iv. 7. 



50 PEDOBAPTISM : 

which is offered only as an interpretation, of the 
commission : 

" Go ye, therefore, and '' (no longer confining 
your labors to the Jews) /^ make disciples from 
among all nations, baptizing them " {i. e., those 
whom you have previously made disciples from the 
nations) ^*into the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; teaching them " (?'. ^., 
those previously made disciples and baptized) *' to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you. And lo, I am with you alway, even to the 
end of the world.'' This is the order which our 
Savior gave. And let no one dare to violate it, 
even to support a pet theory. 

If more than this was commanded, it was not 
obeyed, for those commissioned certainly did no 
more. Guided as they were by the Divine Spirit, 
they did just as they were commanded — no more 
and no less. Their practice, therefore, will plainly 
exhibit what they understood by this commission 
of their Lord and ours. - 



I 



CHAPTER IV 



Before passing to the practice of the apostles, 
however, another remark may be made on the 
commission. True, its discussion has already been 
rather protracted, but so important is its bearing 
upon the subject under consideration, that its full 
force can not be too fully developed or too urgent- 
ly pressed. For, the whole question is settled by 
tJiis commission. It has been previously stated, 
and let the remark be reiterated with double 
emphasis, that th^ commission is the only author- 
ity we have for administering the ordinance of 
Christian baptism to any one; and the sichjects of 
haptisvi therefore must he limited to those men- 
tioned in this commission. Mark and Luke do 
not give another, but simply a different version of 
the same commission. 

Says an able Biptist writer. Rev. John L. Wal- 
ler : * 

'^ This passage (Ma'thew xxviii. 19, 20) is all the authority 
in the Scriptures for the use of the solemn and awful 
name of the Trinity in bap ism ; and all who baptize in- 
fants use this name in their ministration. The true 
question is : Does this commission authorize the haj>tisin of 
infants ? If it does not, the minister who baptizes an in- 

*Iu Western Baptist Review^ Vol. I. p. 161. 

(51) 



52 pedobaptism: 

fant in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit, acts without divine warrant, and performs as 
much an act of will-worship as if he baptized a bell in this 
name. But if this commission does warrant infant bap- 
tism, then the inference may legitimately be drawn that 
it was practiced by the apostles and their co-laborers, 
although no instance of their having done so may be upon 
record. The commission, then, must settle the contro- 
versy." 

When Christ gave this command — his only re- 
corded words in reference to the ordinance — he 
thereby issued, and perpetuated to the end of time, 
tKe whole law of Christian hajptism. And by this 
his disciples must be controlled until he revokes 
the order, or gives another that will nullify this 
one. He certainly gave no other command — so 
far as the inspired account can be relied upon — 
while he was here on earth. From Matthew to 
Revelation it can not be found. 

This is conceded — it is even affirmed — by 0. 
W. Miller, one of the most zealous, though not one 
of the most judicious advocates of Pedobaptism, 
belonging to the Methodist denomination. If the 
rite, therefore, be not authorized in this commis- 
sion, then it can not claim for itself to be of divine 
appointment, but must rest under the charge of 
being from man. Does it get any authority here f 
This is the naked question before us. 

The candid reader, it is believed, will answer 
this question in the negative. 

However this may be with you^ it is none the 
less true, that a decided and emphatic negative is 
given to this very question by a large number of 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 53 

the most learned advocates of infant baptism. Al- 
though making out (?), as they suppose, their 
cause in some other way, yet, in plain words, and 
by fair implications, they have asserted over and 
over again, that this text (Matthew xxviii. 19) has 
no reference whatever to infant baptism. Pedobap- 
tism has received its death-blow from such conces- 
sions, which honest men are compelled to make, 
despite their belief in the dogma. 

From an article published in the Southern 
(Methodist) Review,^ and written by its able 
editor. Rev. A. T. Bledsoe, LL.D., a few quota- 
tions will here be given The object of this article 
was to show that the claim made by 0. W. Miller, 
to have found '' a command for the baptism of 
infants,'' was false — a strange issue, indeed, to be 
made between two Methodist divines. And you 
may see how the Doctor carries the fort with a 
perfect storm. He says: 

"Now, no one can, at first sight see any command for 
infant baptism in these words (Matthew xxviii. 19) ; for 
they contain no mention, whatever, of infants, or of infant 
baptism." 

Again : 

^^ Let him (Mr. Miller) begin at home, and first convince 
the great lights of Peclobaptism that he has found ' a com- 
mand for infant baptism,' [! ! marvelous, indeed ; don't they 
believe that !!!^ and then we miy entertain some better 
hopes of his success abroad. But, until then, we fear his 
discovery [of a command to baptize infants], however 



* Por July 1874, pp. 226, 227, 228. 



54 pedobaptism: 

original, will only be laughed at by our adversaries, and liis 
exploits deemed a little quixotical." 

Again : 

" Jolin Calvin was certainly a great master in logic. 
Grant his premises and he is a match for the world. Yet 
his logic, clear and strong as it was, did not enable him to 
see in Matthew xxviii 19, anything like a command for in- 
fant baptism. Nay, he even admitted that those words, in 
themselves considered, relate to adults only^ and have no 
reference to infants. ^ >1^ >1< Thus, in spite of all his 
zeal for infant baptism, he found no proof for the doctrine 
in Matthew xxviii., much less an ^express command ' in its 
favor. ^ >I^ ^ He admits, as we have seen, that the 
words of Matthew xxviii. 19, 20, relate exclusively to adults, 
and to no others,'^ 

Yes, reader, however strange it may seem, this 
is the language of an LL.D., in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South, commenting upon the 
language of John Calvin, the founder of the Pres- 
byterian Church ! 

The Doctor continues : 

" In like manner, Dr. John Dick, in his learned and 
powerfully reasoned Lectures on Theology^ can no more see 
that the baptism of infants is enjoined in the words of 
IMatthew xxviii. 19, than could John Calvin. Adults^ says 
he, and not children, 'are specified in this commission' 
Hence the words of the commission, in themselves con- 
sidered, have no bearing on the subject of infant baptism." 

Again: 

" The Rev. J. C. Ryle is one of the latest, the most 
leirDcd and the most universally admired evangelical 
exp sitors of the Gospels, and' yet Vv^here Mr. Miller sees 
(in Macthew xxviii. 19) 'a command for infant baptism,' 
this great Pedobaptist does not see one express ivord in its 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 55 

favor, ^ ^ -^ Hence lie adds : ^ I purposely abstain 
from saying anything. on tlie subject of infant baptism 
Tliere is jiothiug in this text (Matthew xxviii. 19) which 
can be fairly used either way in settling this much vexed 
controversy.' " 

The Doctor adds: 

^' It is incumbent on Mr. Miller ^ to show a command for 
infmt baptism,' to Presbyterians and MethodistSj to the 
followers of Calvin and Wesley, and open their eyes to see 
it, before he tries his novel ^method of proof on the 
Baptists." 

Yes, neither Presbyterians, with all their learn- 
ing, nor Methodists, with all their ardent zeal, 
havie ever seen, according to Dr. Bledsoe (and of 
course he knows), in this, or any other text, a 
command to baptize infants. 

Is it a wonder, then, that Baptists have never 
seen it either? 

In taking the testimony of one, the testimony of 
several Pedobaptists has been obtained. They all 
agree that the commission has nothing whatever 
to do with infant baptism, but refers to adults 
exclusively — t/ie very tJnng contended for all 
along. Remember that ; and then remember also 
that the commission is the only autliority on 
record for baptizing any one, even adults. Then 
what becomes of infant baptism? Is it not devoid 
of any support from divine authority ? If it is not 
in the commission, then it is no where. That it is 
not in the commission, its very best friends abund- 
antly and emphatically concede and show. They 
endeavor, of course, to meet the difficulty. In the 
same issue of the Southern Review,'^ as quoted 

^ P. 177. 



56 PEDOBAPTISM : 

above, appears a paragraph, not in the same 
article, but from the same pen, which shows 
how keenly this difficulty is felt by Pedobaptists, 
and how tliey attempt to meet it. For the sake of 
convenience and to avoid repetition, in quoting the 
language, some insertions will be made, desig- 
nated, in every case, however, by tiie brackets, 
which are used for that purpose. The following is 
the sentence from Dr. Bledsoe's ready pen: 

" We object to the bold statement of Mr. Miller, that 
Matthew xxviii. 19, 'is the odIj authority we have for 
administeriDg baptism to any one.' For if so [and it has 
never been, nor can it be successfully contradicted, for 
where is any other to be found?], then toe have no author ity 
whatever for administering baptism to infants [and that is 
exactly the case], since Matthew xxviii. 19 [unquestion- 
ably our only authority to baptize] does not say one word 
about infants, and can not he extended to infants, unless you 
look beyond the words themselves for our authority to do 
so.^ Hence, in confining our authority for baptism to these 
words alone [which all are compelled to do], he has be- 
trayed the cause of infant baptism into the hands of its 

^" But what right have you to extend the meanivg or authority 
of the commission even by looking beyond the words themselves? 
For the authority is contained only in the loords. Certainly every 
means should be used; the surroundings of a text should be care- 
fully and prayerfully studied in order to know the meaning of' the 
text — in this case to learn what Christ tneant and authorized by this 
commission. But by no means can that meaning or that authority 
be extended, so as to include more than was intended by the in- 
spired writer. Take one of Dr. Bledsoe's examples: "God com- 
manded Joshua to make sharp knives and to circumcise again the 
children of Israel." You may look beyond these words to the cus- 
tom of that people, simply to learn their meaning and the extent of 
their authority. And when that is know, we dare not, we can not 
go beyond it, or extend it. So with the commission. The words 
must be stu'^ied; and so the surroundings. Learn what it authorizes; 
and then to extend that authority to infants^ even by looking be- 
yond the words themselves, is impossible and absurd, if Christ did 
not include them. But this Dr. Bledsoe denies. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 57 

enemies. Are not the numerous — we had almost said the 
innumerable — instances of baptism in the New Testament, 
some authority for the administration of this rite? [Cer- 
tainly not, except as they derive their authority from the 
commission — our only authority to baptize ] Are not," he 
continues, "the words of Mark xvi 16, 'He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved,' some authority for the im- 
portance as well as for the existence of the rite of baptism?" 

Certainly, these words sJiow '' the importance^^^ 
and shoio ''" the existence^'^ and they may be some 
^^ authority for the administration of the rite" of 
baptism. But why this sudden change of terms 
— " importance as well as existence," instead of 
''administration of the rite" — in the Doctor's lan- 
guage ? But it is no matter, for the words of Mark 
are simply a different version of the same commis- 
sion given in Matthew xxviii. 19— our only author- 
ity TO BAPTIZE. And, besides, if it was another 
commission, surely no support is offered to the 
cause of infant baptism by such words — " he that 
ielieveth and is baptized.'' And, furthermore, the 
"numerous instances of baptism recorded in the 
New Testament," are not the least authority for 
the administration of baptism. Why is not the 
" community of goods" binding upon the churches 
of to-day ? Because that was a temporary provi- 
sion, which the disciples, guided no doubt, however, 
by the Holy Spirit, devised for the pinching exi- 
gencies of those special times. And it passed 
away, therefore, with the necessity that gave it 
being. Not so, however, with the baptisms they 
performed and left on record. These were admin- 
istered under the direct authority, or in obedi- 



58 PEDOBAPTISM : 

ence to the direct command of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. This command was given in the commis- 
sion ; where Christ not only authorized but also 
perpetuated to "the end of the world" this sacred 
ordinance. Under this command the disciples 
acted tlien^ and under this command the disciples 
of the same Savior act now. Christ's ministers to- 
day have their authority to administer the ordi- 
nance of baptism, not at second-hand from the 
apostles, but from the same source with them — 
viz : from the commission. Leave that, and no 
where can you find a command or any authority 
to baptize. While the baptisms performed by the 
apostles, and their co-laborers, may serve as exam- 
ples to us, showing the extent of the authority 
given by Christ ; yet they are themselves not the 
least authority for us to baptize. Hence, again, 
the necessity for abiding by the commission of our 
Master. 

Now, mark you, in the last quotation given from 
Dr. Bledsoe, he admits, and it is the admission of a 
master mind, that if the commission "contains our 
only authority for baptizing, tlien is infant bap- 
tism betrayed into the hands of its ememies," and 
there is " no authority whatever for administering 
baptism to infants, since Matthew xxviii. 19 does 
not say one word about infants, and can not be ex- 
tended to infants." It therefore devolves upon 
Pedobaptists to show another command, or some 
other authority, outside of this, for baptizing, which 
will include the infant as well as the believing 
adult. This demand is reasonable and just. And 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 59 

until they do this, their cause has not the least 
sanction in the word of God. Pedobaptists them- 
selves being the judges, the commission certainly 
contains no authority for the baptism of infants. 
This is all that is contended for now. And in con- 
ceding this, they have, with their own hands, re- 
moved the very foundation-stone upon which rested 
every pillar that supports the whole superstructure 
of the Pedobaptist theory. A7id a eras/i is in- 
evitable. Their time-honored temple — ■ 

^^ With gilded roofs and towers of stone, 
Now instant all around, 
With sudden crasli and dreadful groan, 
Rushes thundering to the ground/' 

The labor done by the apostles and their co- 
laborers, such as preaching the gospel, baptizing, 
etc., they did under the authority of this commis- 
sion. Their doings, therefore, may be considered 
as a manifestation of its practical workings, show- 
ing how it was understood by those to whom it was 
immediately given, and who were so miraculously 
guided by the Holy Spirit that they could not err 
in its interpretation. To the Acts of the Apostles, 
therefore, and to the Epistles so far as they bear 
upon this subject, your attention is now called. 

But let it be distinctly restated, and ever re- 
membered, that this is done, not for the purpose of 
finding, there, authority to^ baptize, but simply to 
learn how the commission was understood by them. 
Nor is this reasoning in a circle, an appeal from the 
commission to the apostolic practice, and then vice 



60 PEDOBAPTISM : 

versa. But these — their practice on the one hand, 
and the commission on the other — form the two 
sides of an arch, each supporting the other. And 
this gives to '* believer's baptism only" a founda- 
tion, which has stood through the ages, and which 
still stands as solid and as immovable as the ever- 
Tasting hills. About ten days after receiving the 
commission from their risen Lord, who immediately 
thereupon ascended to glory, the apostles began 
their labors in Jerusalem (Acts ii.), having been 
commanded to abide in that city '^ until endued with 
power from on high." And there they abode in an 
upper room, and "continued with one accord in 
prayer and supplication." '^And suddenly there came 
a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, 
and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues 
like as of fire, and it sat upon them. And they 
were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to 
speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter- 
ance.'^'^ 

This was the *' power from on high," the baptism 
in the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus, ''being by the 
right hand of God exalted, and having received of 
the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost," was 
now shedding forth upon his disciples to be their 
comforter and guide amid the trials and labors that 
should come upon them; and who should ''teach 
them all things, and bring all things to their re- 
membrance, whatsoever he had said unto them." 
These were indeed favorable auspices under which 
to begin their work. Now, it is impossible for 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 61 

them to mistake the meaning of Christ's language. 
They are filled, with the Holy Spirit, 

The first thing the commission enjoined, and the 
fi]?st thing they did, was io jpreach the gospel to a 
large concourse of people — "devout men, from 
every nation under heaven " — gathered in Jerusa- 
lem to attend one of their annual feasts. 

Under that sermon, many were ''" pricked in their 
hearts^'' and cried out, " Men and brethren, what 
must we do?" Peter answered (see Acts ii. 38, 
39). Here are the facts in the case : 1. Peter 
preached the gospel. 2. Some, being '' pricked in 
their hearts," inquired what to do. 3. Peter an- 
swered: "Repent, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission 
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." Is there any place liere for infants ? 
Could they have the gospel preached to them? 
Could they be pricked in their hearts — convicted of 
sin ? Could they be, with any reason, commanded 
to repent? Could infants be baptized in the name 
of Jesus Christ? ov for the remission of si7is — 
whatever be the meaning of "for? " Could unin- 
telligent infants, upon their baptism, receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost? And yet baptism is con- 
nected with all of these things. Who were bap- 
tized ? " Then they that gladly received the word" 
(^. ^., believed the gospel just preached) ''were bap- 
tized." (Yerse 41.) Pedobaptism is wholly un- 
known here. Let him find it who can. As the ex- 
pression, ''The promise is unto you and your chil- 
dren^'^ though formerly considered as one of tlieir 



62 PEDOBAPTiSM : 

strong proof-texts, is now abandoned by many able 
Pedobaptists, as in no sense bearing upon infant 
baptism, it may be passed over with a single re- 
mark. The word children is used not in the sense 
of hahes of those parents then present, but of pos- 
terity simply. This is a common use of the word. 
Remember, too, that to these children is Vae prom- 
ise of the Holy Spirit; and these the Lord our God 
shall call. Now, when it comes to pass that a 
babe can receive the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, 
and can hear the calling of Grod, it will be time 
enough then to give this text a further notice. It 
is not at all strange that Dr. Whitby,^ a Pedo- 
baptist, would write as follows: 

^' These words will not prove a right of infants to receive 
baptism, the promise here being that of the Holy Ghost 
mentioned in A^erses 16, 17, 18, and so relating only to the 
times of the miraculous effusions [?] of the Holy Ghost, 
and to those persons who hy age loere capable of these ex- 
traordinary gifts J^ 

Albert Barnes on this passage says : 

^' It does not refer to children as children^ and should 
not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant bap- 
tism, or as applicable particularly to infants. It is a prom- 
ise, indeed, to parents that the blessings of salvation shall 
not be confined to parents, but shall be extended to their 
posterity." 

And so other Pedobaptists could be quoted, but 
it is useless. For no one, in this age of improved 
biblical exegesis and interpretation, would venture 
to found an argument on this passage for infant 
baptism — unless, forsooth, his cause was in the last 

^•Quoted in Howell's Evils of Infant Baptism, p. 48. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 63 

desperate struggle. If Christ, in giving the com- 
mission, authorized infant baptism, it is most re- 
markable that we have no mention of the practice 
here, where, since the giving of the commission, 
the gospel was first preached, and the ordinance 
was administered for the first time. Moreover, 
every cirGumstance connected with, as also every 
word in the narrative, is irreconcilable with the 
practice. 

And when, through persecution, the disciples 
were scattered abroad, they went everywhere — 
not, as some would have us believe, baptizing men, 
women, and chidren, irrespective of their age or 
moral preparation, as if by that to make them 
disciples— but ^^ preaching the wordf^ by preaching 
the gospel they made disciples^ and then baptized 
them as their Master had done, and had com- 
manded them to do. Philip went to the city of 
Samaria, and unto the citizens of that city he 
" preached Christ.'' Notice how he follows the 
order of the commission. ''And the people gave 
heed, hearing and seeing the miracles which were 
wrought." (Acts viii. 5, 6.) As infants could not, 
of course, be included in this first part of the work, 
so they can not in the other. For '' When they 
Relieve '' (or were made disciples by) " Philip 
preaching the kingdom of God, and the name of 
Jesus Christ, they " (then, just as the commission 
had enjoined) '' were baptized, both men and 
women." (Acts viii. 12.) No infants here. And 
yet the disciples understood the commission and 
labored in accordance with its injunctions. Again, 



64: PEDOBAPT^M : 

in the same chapter, Philip meets; the Eunuch* 
This case subserves no purpose here^ except to 
show the direction given in the commission. 
Philip preaclies Jesus; the Eunuch. helieveSy 'be- 
comes a disciple under his preaching ; then Philip 
baptizes him. Jesus is preached; Jesus is believed 
on; Jesus; is obeyed.. Such is the divine order. 
And such is the case in every example on record. 
Next, Peter, by invitation, visits Cornelius at his 
home in Cesarea. (Acts x.) Having arrived he 
''found many that were come together/^ and hav- 
ing heard the explanation of his being sent for, he 
hegan preacMng the gospel.. ''While he yet spake 
tiiese words the Holy Spirit fell on all them, that 
heard his word;'^^ they: loere made disciples and did 
all magnify God. And then Peter "commanded 
them to be baptized.."" Also (Acts xviii., 8): "And 
many of the Corinthians believing were baptized^ 
It is worthy of remark^ how, in all these examples; 
of the apostolic practice, they uniformly followed 
the injunctions of the commission,, even in the 
ord'T — a matter of little importance to some of 
this da}' — in which the Savior gave them. In every 
instance, (1) by the preaching of the gospel^ per- 
sons were made disciples, became belioYers in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and (2) then they were baptized 
-^put on the badge of discipleship. 

The household baptisms of the New Testament 
are in perfect harmony with this practice. This is 
claimed as strong ground. And by their bold as- 
sertions, Pedobapti#ts seem to think that even in- 
telligent persons will believe that one example of 



IS IT FROM HEA.VEN OR OF MEN ? 65 

infaat baptisra has really beea found. Bat witli 
tke most diligent searching, tliey have been unable 
to produce one single infant from all these house- 
holds. It is to argue wildly and fallaciously, that 
because households were baptized, therefore in- 
fants are baptized. The argument is completely 
overthrown by simply asking are there not num- 
bers of households in which there is not a single 
infant? It must be j^roved beyond all doubt; it 
will not do to assume that the households mentioned 
had infants among- their number. In the New 
Testament there are two households mentioned as 
believing, " with nothing said of their baptism. 
(John iv. 53, and Acts xviii., 8.) There are two 
others whose baptism, as well as their faith, is 
mentioned. There is one other whose baptism is 
spoken of, but nothing is said about tkeir faith. 
The most superficial thinker would naturally sup- 
ply tKe faith where it was not mentioned in the 
one, just as they would the baptism where it was 
not mentioned in the other cases. 

The baptism of the Philippian jailer and his 
liousehold is recorded in Acts s:vi. 31-34;. Oa 
reading the narrative you will observe the follow- 
ing facts : 1. Paul and Silas " spake unto him the 
word of the Lord, and to all that were in his housed 
2. And then baptized "him and all his, immedi- 
ately." 3. And having brought Paul and Silas into 
his bouse (be had previously taken them out to 
wash their stripes and Wcis baptized while out), the 
jailer " set meat before them, and rejoicedy 'believ- 
ing in God vnth all his hottseP Were tiiere any 



66 PED0BA1?TISM : 

infants ia this household, thinlc 70a? Could they 
be spoken to, i. e.^ have the g-ospel preached unto 
them. ? Do you candidly believe that unintelli- 
gent infants were made disciples by the preaching 
of the gospel ? That they became helievers in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and helieving vrere baptized? 
That they rejoiGed. helieving in God?'^'^ You no ? 
What ! that there were infants in the jailer's house- 
hold, and were baptized? And that these same in- 
fants certainly heard the gos^el^^ Relieved it^ and 
rejoiced? Yerily, then, they were extraordinary 
infants ! ! 

A Pedobaptist commentator, Bloomfield, says : 

"It is take a for granted that his family became Chris- 
tians as well as himself." 

It is childish to talk of infant baptism in this 
household. Nothing but the greatest extremity 
would force one to take shelter under it. Here, as 
in all the other narratives, there is an inspired com- 
mentary on the commission. 1. The gospel is 
preached, and by it men are made disciples — be- 
come belie^rers. 2. Then as believers they are 
baptized. A contrary case can not be found in all 
the New Testament. These men were guided by 
God's unerring Spirit. Hence, the uniformity of 
their practice. 



CHAPTER V. 



There was also the household of Stephanas, 
who were baptized by Paul. (1 Corinthians i. 16.) 
But, most unquestionably, there were no infants 
among them. For in the same Epistle (xvi. 15) it 
is distinctly said: '* Ye know the household of 
Stephanas, that it was the first-fruits of Achaia^ 
and that they have addicted themselves to the min- 
is try of the saints y It will be time enough to 
give this case a further notice, when it has been 
proved, or when it is even thought, that unintelli- 
gent babes can be converted, or in any sense can 
be the fruity the result of or made disciples by, 
the preaching of the gospel, and when it shall be 
further shown that infants can addict themselves 
to the ministry, to the waiting on, or the attending 
to, the saints. This household of Stephanas was 
the first fruits oiih.Q apostolic preaching in Achaia, 
the first in that heathen land, who, by the preach- 
ing of the gospel, had heen persuaded to turn from 
their idols, to serve the true and living God, and 
these converts had given themselves to the min- 
istry of the saints. 

And now comes the " stronghold " of Pedobap- 
tism, viz: the baptism of Lydia and her house- 
hold. (Acts xvi. 13-15, 40.) Her ''heart the Lord 

(67) 



68 PEDOBAPTISM : 

opened, that she attended unto the things which 
were spoken of Paul," while he sat by the river 
side, *'and spake" (or preached the gospel) "unto the 
women which resorted thither." Lydia and others 
were converted under the sermon. ''And when 
she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
us, saying. If ye have judged me to be faithful to 
the Lord, come unto my house, and abide." This 
verse is claimed to support the dogma of infant 
baptism. It is constantly asserted and reasserted, 
over and over again, that this household was bap- 
tized upon the faith of Lydia. To which, however, 
it is sufficient to reply, that the Scriptures say no 
such thing. The language does not even imply ^ 
much less necessitate^ such an intrepretation. 
Should it be said, " when Mrs. A was baptized, 
and her husband, she prevailed on the ministers to 
stop at her house," would any one suppose that 
the husband had been baptized upon the wife's 
faith ? Why then suppose, in a similar case of 
construction, that Lydia's house was baptized on 
Jier faith ? If this be the meaning, then it would 
follow that so soon as the wife was converted and 
baptized, her husband, no matter how wicked and 
immoral in life; all her children, no matter as to 
either their age or moral standing; and all the 
servants, no difference either how old^ or how 
wicked, or how j)rofl.igate, they may be ; these all 
must be at once baptized upon the faith of the 
wife, the mother, the mistress ! Take the position 
that Lydia's household were baptized upon her 
faith, and this conclusion is inevitable : you must 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 69 

either abandon the position or accept with it the 
conclusion. Which will you do ? Baptists say 
^' every man must give an account of himself unto 
God." But even admitting that they were bap- 
tized upon her faith, which is not done, it by no 
means follows that there were infantsin. her house, 
or that infants were baptized. How do you know 
there were any infants there ? This must be clear- 
ly established before the passage can be of the 
least avail to Pedobaptists. To prove this they 
assume (1) that Lydia was married; (2) that she 
had children; (3) that these children were all in- 
fants ; (4) that she had them with her at Philippi, 
th?'ee hundred miles from her home in Thyatira. 
These are all necessary adjuncts to the argument, 
and yet are all merely gratuitous assumptions — 
none of them are probable, but are all improhahle! 
Four haseless assumptions! Do four ciphers^ 
added together, make anything? So certainly, do 
four improhahle assumptions "prove nothing. 

No one doubts that Lydia was baptized upon a 
profession of her faith. And in view of the com- 
mission, which commanded the baptism of be- 
lievers, and all the former actions of the apostles, 
baptizing only upon a profession of 2ipersonal faith 
mdi personal ^'^iYiov^'w\\o can reasonably doubt, this 
household, like those persons at Corinth and other 
places, '' helieving^ were baptized?" The baptism 
of Crispus' household is not questioned, because it 
is not mentioned, it being stated simply that they 
helieved. Of course they would be baptized as 
they were disciples or believers. In the case of 



70 PEDOBAPTISM I 

Lydia's household, however, nothing is said about 
their believing, but only they were baptized. It 
was not necessary to mention their faith. If it 
were said of a certain Baptist minister that he had 
baptized a number of persons, would you suppose 
that he had baptized some who were not professed 
believers, simply because the fact of their believ- 
ing is not mentioned? The apostles, in their day, 
were not more uniform in the practice of baptizing 
only professed disciples or helieverS', than are the 
Baptists to-di)y. The very fact that a Baptist min- 
ister has baptized an individual is full evidence 
that such an individual had made a profession of 
faith. So in the case of those baptized by the 
apostles. If nothing had been said about Lydia, 
except what is contained in verse fifteen, ''And 
when she was baptized," etc., no one would doubt 
for a moment that she had believed. Why doubt 
about the household ? The very fact that they 
Avere baptized is evidence sufficient that they were 
helievers or disciples. 

Dr. De Witt, a Pedobaptist, feeling the force of 
this, in his commentary* on the passage, says: 

'' This passage has been adduced in proof of the apos- 
tolical authority of iufaat baptism, but there is no proof 
here that any except adults were baptized." 

Dr. Olshausen, a German Pedobaptist, also says 
in his commentary f on the New Testament: 

•' There is no trace to be found here of instruction be- 
fore baptism [is it possible that he overlooked the fact 

--'•Baptist Short Method, p. 109. 
t In hoc loco. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 71 

that Paul had preached the gospel to Lydia and the rest 
of them, verse xiv ?] ; without doubt, the rite took place 
merely on a profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. 
But lor that very reason it is highly improbable that the 
phrase {oiJcos antes) , her household^ should be understood as 
including infant children.' ' 

See how a learned Fedobaptist expresses himself 
on this passage. He excludes infants, and does it 
upon the precise ground as the Baptists do, viz : 
because ''it tookplace merehj upon aprofession of 
faith in Jesus as the Messiah^ And then in this 
immediate connection, and right under the shadow 
of the '' strong (?) hold of Pedobaptism,'' the same 
distinguished writer adds : 

" There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage 
for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles, nor can 
th' necessity of it be drawn from the nature of the ordi- 
nance.' ^ 

That those composing her household were not 
infants, but believers, is confirmed by what is said 
in verse forty of the same chapter. Paul and 
Silas '^ went out of the prison, and entered into the 
house of Lydia, and when they had seen the hreth- 
ren^ they comforted them, and departed." Here 
her household, the first converts of that famous 
city, are called brethren and are comforted^ Can 
infants be classed among such ? Can they receive 
the comforts of the gospel ? Would you call them 
''the brethern ?" Do you believe that there were 
infants among those comforted brethren in Lydia's 
household f 

It is all in vain to say that these were Paul's 
traveling companions. Only three persons w^ent 



72 PEDOBAPTISM : 

with him to this chief city of Macedonia. Silas, 
one of these, is in prison with him. Luke, another 
one of them, in writing the record says : " Paul 
and Silas went out of the prison and," not came (as 
he would have put it, if he had been in the house 
at the time) but '-^entered into the house of Lydia, 
and" comforted'^'^ (not us^ as he would have said, had 
he been among them, but) the hretliren^ who were in 
the house. Most likely, therefore, Luke was not 
in the house at the time, and, consequently, not 
among those whom Paul comforted. Where Tim- 
othy, the only remaining companion, was, it is not 
stated. But surely the inspired historian would 
not call him *' the 'brethren?'' Perhaps Timothy, 
and Lydia, and her infant children^ were the com- 
forted brethren !! ! But who were they? If we 
must infer, surely '' the most reasonable inference 
is that her household consisted of persons in her 
employ, that they believed and were baptized as 
well as Lydia, and that they were Hhe brethren' 
whom Paul and Silas comforted^ when released 
from prison they 'entered into the house of Lydia.'" 
This household baptism has been considered the 
strongest example for infant baptism that can be 
furnished by all the practice of the apostles. And 
yet there is no evidence, absolutely none^ that 
there were any infants there ; while there is proof 
positive on the other hand that there was simply 
the baptism of believers. Before these New Testa- 
ment household baptisms can, in the least, advant- 
age Pedobaptists, it must be established beyond 
the shadow of a doubt, either (1) that in every 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 73 

household there are infants; or (2) tbat in those 
mentioned here — of the jailer, of Stephanas, and 
Lydia — there were most unquestionably infants to 
be found. The first has never been attempted. 
For there are scores of households all over this 
country — many of them in Baptist churches — in 
which there is not a single infant. 

It is a thing of common occurrence for Baptist 
ministers to baptize households, as did the apostles, 
but they do not baptize infants. 

To establish the second of these, some have 
tried, but most signally failed. The only evidence 
that infants were baptized, is that lious^Jiolds are 
mentioned — and this is no evidence at all, not 
even presumptive evidence. The fallacy in the 
argument is perfectly patent. For many Baptist 
ministers, both in this country and foreign lands, 
have baptized more households than are mentioned 
in the New Testament, and have so reported. But 
is any one either so ignorant, or so insane, as to 
infer from the reading of household baptisms, in 
these reports, that therefore infants were baptized 
by Baptist ministers ? 

On the other hand. Baptists have gone further 
than could be required of them, and shown con- 
clusively that these households, in the New Testa- 
ment, were all helieving households; that "facts 
and circumstances are related which render it a 
moral certainty that there were no infants in those 
baptized families." There is not a single baptism 
mentioned in the New Testament, but what, in con- 
nection with it, some statement is made that 



74 PEDOBAPTISM : 

necessitates the exclusion of the unintelligent 
babe. Indeed, the concessions made by some able 
Pedobaptists concerning household baptisms have 
utterly broken the force of the arguments drawn 
. from them by others. 

In Kitto's Biblical Ej^^clopedia * is an article on 
baptism, prepared by Professor J. Jacobi, at the 
request of Neander, and indorsed by him ' as in 
unison with his own principles." Alluding to 
household baptisms, as the ^^ ^strongest argument'' 
from scripture for infant baptism, the writer says, 
however, that : 

" In none of these instances has it been proved that there 
were little children among them; but evea supposing that 
there were, there was no necessity for excluding them from 
baptism by plain words, since such an exclusion loas under- 
stood as a matte?' of course J ^ 

Neanderf himself says: 

^^ We can not infer the existence of infant baptism from 
instances of the baptism of whole families, for the passage, 
1 Corinthians xvi. 15, shows the fallacy of such a concla- 
sion, as from that it appears that the whole family of 
Stephanas, who were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults." 

From Coleridge, who stands among Pedobaptists 
second neither to Neander nor Jacobi, the same 
workj gives also the following quotations : 

" I must concede to you that too many of the Pedobap- 
tists have erred. ^ >I^ >K If I should inform any one 
that I had called at a friend's house, but had found nobody 
at home, the family having all gone to the play; and if he, 

'^ Curtis' Prog. Bapt. Prin. p. 93. 
t Same, p. 9-1. 
J P. 94. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 75 

on the strength of the information, should take occasion to 
asperse my friend's wife, for unmotherly conduct in taking 
an infant, six months' old, to a crowded theater, would you 
allow him to press the words ' no body ' and 'all the family' 
in justification of the slander? Would you not tell him 
that the words were to be interpreted by the nature of the 
subject, the purpose of the speaker, and their ordinary 
acceptation ; and that he must or might have known that 
infants of that age would not be admitted to the theater? 
Exactly so with regard to the words, 'he and all his household.^ 
Had the baptism of infants at that early period of the gospel 
been a known practice, or had this been previously demon- 
strated, then, indeed, the argument that in ail probability there 
were infants or young children in so large a family, would 
be no otherwise objectionable than as heing superfiiious^ and 
a sort of anti- climax in logic. But if the words are cited 
as the proof it would be a clear pe^iVio prmcipis, though 
there had been nothing else against it. But when ive turn 
hack to the Scriptures preceding the narrative and find re- 
pentance and belief demanded as the terms and INDISPENSA- 
BLE co^'DITIONS of baptism^ then the case above imagined 
app lies in its fu II forced 

Will you not, with these learned Pedobaptists, 
abandon the hoicseJiolcls of the New Testament, 
and never mention them again in connection with 
infant haptism ? In all the practice of the apos- 
tles, who no doubt understood the law of baptism, 
as through the four Gospels, there is notJdng to 
show this to be from heaven or a divine appoint- 
ment. The whole ground, so far, has been surren- 
dered, step by step, by Pedobaptists themselves. 

The Epistles now remain. 

In connection with these there are two facts — 
the one renders iiimprohaljle^ the oHiqy im2?ossihle^ 
that Pedobaptism was a thing known, much less 
practiced, by the apostles or the apostolic churches. 



76 PEDOBAPTISM : 

1\\Qf.rst is, that throughout the Epistles, not one 
word is said about ''the children of the covenant," 
'' the baptized children of the church ;" *' their 
covenant relations," or any such phrases which 
abound in the service and in the prayers of Pedo- 
baptists, as well as in their literature. This is 
remarkably singular upon the hypothesis that 
Pedobaptism was them practiced. Verily, the 
apostles were censurably neglectful of the "little 
lambs of the foldT' "Would a Pedobaptist apostle 
have pursued this course ? To bring the matter 
nearer home, would a Pedobaptist missionary write 
a letter to a Pedobaptist Churcii — making special 
mention of parents and children, urging both to a 
faithful performance of relative duties — and say 
nothing of the obligations of either parents or 
children, as connected with, or growing out of in- 
fant baptism?" Of course not. And yet this is 
just the course pursued by the inspired writers of 
the New Testament. 

The second fact is, that these same writers, in 
addressing the churches, used terms which are 
absolutely inadmissible as being applicable to un- 
conscious babes. E. g., '^Faithful hretJiemr ^'-TJie 
called in Christ Jesiis^''^ ^''Called to he saints ^^ ^ni 
such kindred terms, which abound in the Epistles, 
and will be readily remembered by those familiar 
with them. Certainly these terms can not be ap- 
plied to infants. And, besides, those who were 
baptized are spoken of in such a way as to make it 
impossible for infants to have been among them. 
'' Paul refers to the ^haptized, as 'dead to sin ' — as 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 77 

rising from the baptismal waters to ' walk in new- 
ness of life ' — as ' putting on Clirist' — as 4usen with 
him through the faith of the operation of God' — as 
'baptized for the dead,' or in the iiU(foHhe resur- 
rection — as making a ^profession of faith,' a 'profes- 
sion before many witnesses,' etc. These phrases are 
utterly destitute of meaning if applied to unintelli- 
gent babes." Are these facts without a most 
significant bearing on the question — "Is it from 
heaven or of man ?" Is not this the natural con- 
clusion, that Pedobaptism, or infant membership, 
was not thought of, by either the apostles or the 
apostolic churches, and are therefore of human 
origin? Can this be fairly denied? There is 
one passage which perhaps ought to be referred 
to in this connection, viz : 1 Corinthians vii. 
14, "Else were your children unclean, but now 
are they holy." Read carefully the entire con- 
text, and you will see that there is not the slight- 
est allusion to baptism, either of adults or of 
infants. The case is simply this: the question is 
asked, shall there be a separation of husband and 
wife where one is a believer and the other an un- 
believer ? Shall the believing husbands and wives 
put away tlieir unbelieving partners? No, says 
Paul, you can not do that, for by such an action 
you would prove your own childven (whose parents 
are in the church) unclean, i. e. ceremonially, ille- 
gitimate before the law, and they must be put 
away also, on the same ground. But now are your 
children (i, e,^ of helievlng parents) holy, ceremoni- 
ally clean, legitimate heforethe law^ and of course, 



78 PEDOBAPTISM : 

therefore, they must not be cast off. Neither must 
the unbelieving husband and wife be put away, 
for they sustain to their unbelieving partners, 
the same relation as children sustain to their 
believing parents. " The passage is intensely 
strong against infant baptism. It shows that child- 
ren of the members of the Corinthian Church 
sustained the same relation to the church that 
unbelieving husbands and wives did, and that 
if believing husbands and wives abandoned their 
unbelieving partners, believing parents might, 
with the same propriety, separate themselves 
from their children." This is manifestly the apos- 
tle's argument to show that the believer must 
not put away the unbelieving partner. (Verses 12 
and 13.) He classes in the same category children 
of believing parents, and the unbelieving husband 
or wife whose partner is a believer. And one may 
be baptized with as much propriety as the other. 
On this passage Albert Barnes, in his commen- 
tary, says : 

" There is not one word about baptism here, not one 
allusion to it, nor does the argument ia the remotest de- 
gree bear upon it The question was not whether children 
should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a 
separation between man and wife, where the one was a 
Christian and the other not. Paul states that ^y'such a 
separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage 
was improper, and, of course, the children must be regarded 
as unclean. 

Olshausen, also, in his commentary on the text, 

says: 

'^It is moreover clear, that Paul would not have chosen 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 79 

tills line of argument liad infant baptism been at that time 
practiced." 

Professor Jacobi, in the article on baptism pre- 
viously quoted, says :^ 

"A pretty sure indication of its (infant baptism) non- 
existence in the apostolic age may be inferred from 1 Co- 
rinthians vii 14, since Paul would certainly have referred to 
the baptism of the children for their holiness." 

The North British Review, a Presbyterian jour- 
nal of Scotland, and edited by Dr. Hanna, is 
quoted by Curtis in the same work,f as con- 
taining in its August number, 1852, the following : 

'' 1 Corinthians vii. 14^ is incompatible with the suppo- 
sition that infant baptism was then practiced at Corinth. 
-k^ ^ ^ Many, indeed, have explained the term 
holy as meaning ^ have been admitted to baptism,' making 
the verse say that if the faith of the unbelieving partner 
had not sanctified the marriage, the children would not 
have been admitted to baptism, whereas they had been 
baptized. But this is to re-iorite Scripture^ not to inter- 
pret ity 

Must it be repeated that these four men, Barnes, 
Olshausen, Jacobi, and Hanna (to whom could 
have been added others), are all learned Pedo- 
baptists, and of good standing in their churches ? 
Yet they declare in the most emphatic language 
that the passage, 1 Corinthians vii. 14, has not a 
thing to do with baptism. 

The New Testament, in which is to be found the 
whole law of Christian baptism, has been diligently 
searched ; not in all the sayings of Christ, not in 

-Curtis' Prog. Bapt. Prin. p. 96. 
tP. 97. 



80 PEDOBAPTISM I 

all the doings and sayings of the apostles, not in 
the commission, where the ordinance was insti- 
'tnted, and the law given by which the ordinance 
was to be controlled ; not in all the inspired corn- 
mentary on that commission, found in the Acts of 
the Apostles, nowhere from Matthevj to Revela- 
tion^ one single precept, or example, or even " one 
word^' has been found to justify the baptism of un- 
intelligent infants. The Pedobaptist world has 
been challenged time and again; they have been 
offered large rewards to produce from the New 
Testament, just one precept or example for the 
practice. But they have never produced it. It 
can not be found. 

Hence, Colridge, in Curtis' work* already quo- 
ted, says: 

'^ I confine myself to the assertion — not that infant bap- 
tism was not — but there is no sufficient proof that it was 
the practice of the apostolic age." 

And Neander, also quoted by the same writerjf 
says: 

'' It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism^ 
We cannot prove that the apostles ordained it^ 

Julius Mueller, quoted by Dr. Alvah Hovey, in 
Baptist Quarterly ^X ^^^ called by him "one of 
the ablest theologians of Germany,'- says: 

" According to the very idea of baptism it supposes, be- 
sides the external act, a person who receives the same with 
faith in the promise of J esus Christ, and confesses this faith; 

*P. 97. 

fP. 103. 

JFor April, 1875, p. 139. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 81 

and this presupposes an Sintecedeut preaching of the word 
of Christ to him. The scriptural proofs for the necessity 
of infant baptism are untenahle. ^ ^ ^ The 

fact that new-born children were baptized by the apostles 
can in no icay be shown; on the contrary the manner in 
which the apostles everywhere speak of baptism, together 
with 1 Corinthians vii. 14, and the narratives of the oldest 

church history, PUT IT BEYOND DOUBT THAT INFANT BAP- 
TISM HAD NO PLACE IN THE ApOSTOLIC ChURCH." 

And he a Pedobaptist ! The wonders under 
heaven are numerous indeed! By what autliority 
is this thing done ? Is this practice from heaven 
or of men? In*the next chapter other learned ad- 
vocates of the practice may give their further 
testimony to this question. 

But, dear readers, together we have gone 
through the New Testament, and now what think 
you of the subject? Suffer a few personal ques- 
tions. It is no desire on the part of the writer to 
sustain a theory, simply for the theory's sake. (O 
blessed Redeemer, if my cause is not thy cause, 
let it perish., that truth may he estahlished !) Were 
you baptized in infancy? Then in the name of Him 
who loved us, and gave Himself for us, may it be 
asked: In the light of all the facts presented in 
the foregoing pages, have you been baptized ly the 
authority (where can the authority be found), and 
INTO the name, of the adorable Trinity ? Was 
your baptism, administered when you knew noth- 
ing of it, a profession of your faith in Christ? 
the answer of your conscience, then made good by 
regenevation^ toioard Godf Did your conscience^ 
then^ demand of you this act of obedience ; and 
did you^ at that time in your infancy^ submit to 



82 PEDOBAPTISM : 

that ordinance in response to the demand made hy 
your conscience f All these questions you must 
answer in the negative. Then you have not been 
baptized, have never obeyed Christ in this ordi- 
nance. True, it is a trial — a severe trial — to re- 
nounce the baptism given by your father and your 
mother. But remember the words of the Crucified 
One : '' He that loveth father or mother more than 
me is not worthy of mef^ and also those other 
fearful words : " For if we sin willfully after that 
we have received the knowledge of the truth, 
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins ; but a 
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indigna- 
tion." 

The words of Cotton Mather are commendable 
words: "Let a precept be never so difficult, or 
never so distasteful to flesh and blood, yet if I see 
it is God's command, my soul says, It is good ; let 
me obey it, till I die." 

*'If a man love me, he will keep my words, and 
my Father will love him^ and we will come unt^^ 
him, and make our abode with himP Can you, 
dear friend, claim this blessed promise? Do you 
love the Savior? "He that hath my command- 
ments, and keepeth them^ he it is that loveth me." 
" If ye love me^ keep my commandments," (O^^Z (?/ 
them. This is the language of Him to whom we 
expect to sing among the redeemed in glory: 
"Unto him that loved us,, and washed us from our 
sins, in his own blood, and hath made us kings and 
priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory 
and dominion forever and ever. Amen." 



CHAPTER VI 



In the New Testament is given a full account of 
the institution of the churches of Christ ; the rules 
by which they are governed ; the two ordinances, 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and, of all the reg- 
ulations for the administration of them. 

Baptism is a New Testament ordinance. But 
after a most diligent examination of that volume, 
not a single command, not a single example, not 
even one word has been found to support the 
dogma of infant baptism. Here the matter might 
rest. The question is decided. Infant baptism is 
of men. It has no sanction in the word of God. 
Still, however, it is believed in and practiced by a 
large number of good people. And they have a 
variety of arguments that at least seem to them to 
sustain it. Without entering upon an investigation 
or formal refutation of these, there are two con- 
siderations, which deepen the belief that it is of 
men, and manifestly show that there must be 
a flaw and an evident weakness in the arguments 
by which it is defended, and upon the strength of 
which it is practiced. The one is, that niavly all 
the arguments adva^noed in itsfavov^ can he ^ivged 
with equal jpropriety and equal force in sup- 
port of INFANT COMMUNION, viz : the antiquity of 

(83) 



84 pedobaptism: 

that practice : the Lord's Supper in the room 
of the Passover, of which feast infants partook ; 
the silence of the New Testament — infant com- 
munion is not forbidden, etc., etc. This is sig- 
nificant. Now, all these arguments, with their 
irresistible (?) power, equal to the emergency 
in the case of infant haptism^ have led no one, in 
modern times, to the practice of infant commitn- 
ion. They force to the one, but not to the other! 
Nor were Pedobaptists prevented from abandon- 
ing the practice of infant communion^ by the same 
arguments by which they now defend infant hap- 
tism. The two dogmas are of near kin as well as 
near the same age. Baptism and the Supper, as 
instituted by Christ, rest upon the same authority 
— positive law. And both are to be preserved in 
their sacred and primitive purity. And is it not 
singular that the same arguments^ which admit the 
unintelligent infants to the one, will not admit 
them to the other ! This very fact is a manifesta- 
tion of the weakness of the arguments. And, 
moreover, there is not a single objection, which 
can be raised against infant communion^ but what 
the same^ or a kindred objection, can be raised 
against iifant haptism. Why practice one and 
not the other? The other consideration, and the 
one especially to be noticed in this chapter, is: 
These arguments, if not entirely demolished, are 
greatly weakened by the concessions of many of 
' the ablest Pedobaptists themselves to the effect^ 

THAT IN ALL THE' NeW TESTAMENT THERE IS NOT ONE 
PKECEPT OR EXAMPLE, OR EVEN A WORD ABOUT INFANT 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 85 

BAPTISM — THAT ON THIS SUBJECT THE NeW TESTAMENT, 
ALTHOUGH CONTAINING THE WHOLE LAW OF BAPTISM, IS 

PERFECTLY SILENT. If it was Hot taiight, Hor com- 
manded, nor practiced by either Christ or his in- 
spired apostles, can there be any argument, of suf- 
ficient strength or plausibility, to lead to the 
practice of this human rite, and thereby bring 
ourselves under the withering curse of adding to 
the oracles of God ? These concessions — and their 
name is legion — are indeed a heavy burden for 
Pedobaptists to carry in making their defense. 
And it is no wonder that under them, they become 
restive, and so strenuously endeavor to break their 
force, when pressed upon them by their opponents. 
Nor have they always used the most honorable 
means, or acted in the most becoming way, in their 
attempts to do this. But notwithstanding all their 
attempts to explain, and to remove this difficulty, 
still the burden hangs heavily. More than once 
has it been charged by these restless parties, that 
Baptists quote these concessions out t)f their con- 
nection, and in that way do not give the full sense 
of the author quoted. Is it meeting sncTi a cJiarge 
in language too strong to denounce it as false? 
especially, when it has never been sustained ? 
Every quotation which has been given, or shall 
hereafter be given, either in this or succeeding 
chapters, will bear the most scrutinizing test of 
even those most competent to judge, and who are 
most anxious to relieve their cause of this heavy 
and annoying burden. ( Of course you have 
read what is said in the '' Prefatory Note " on 



86 PEDOBAPTISM : 

this subject.) Do not, therefore, bring this charge 
against any of these quotations — at least until 
yoit have examined the original works and know 
for yourself. And when you have examined, 
you will find in every case, that although these 
men practice, and are earnest advocates for, in- 
fant baptism, yet the fact which thej^ concede — 
that the New Testament is silent on the subject — 
still stands just as it is here quoted, without the 
least perversion or misrepresentation. And in 
many instances the concession will become stronger 
the further you examine — as it required too much 
space to quote more extensively than simply to 
get the testimony of the author to a fact. Indeed, 
^oprofound has heen this silence^ as considered by 
some, that they have taken it for the strongest 
foundation upon which to build arguments to sus- 
tain this practice ! ! Away, too, with every charge 
that bears against the piety, honesty, integrity, or 
scholarship of the men, from whom these conces- 
sions are taken. All of them are scholars; many of 
them the very salt of the Pedobaptist denomina- 
tions. It is a shame that their colleagues would 
stoop to bring such a charge against them for do- 
ing what everj'' reader of the Bible is forced to do. 
But these charges have been made against them, 
by their own brethren. And in doing so the per- 
son or persons have thereby rendered themselves 
unworthy of notice, and shown themselves in every 
way inferior to the men against whom they pre- 
sumed to speak. Here is the difficulty — it must 
have been noticed by all who have read on the 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 87 

subject: Pedolaptists have never heen agreed 
among themselves as to how or where infant hap- 
tism had its rise^ or was taught. What one has 
built up, another with ruthless hands has torn 
down. What one calls his "solid iasis,^' his '' Gib- 
raltar position^^ another, of his own faith, and 
equal to him, utterly destroys, by one sweeping 
assertion, " that it has not a thing to do with the 
subject." Then on the ruins of his brother's 
tower, so grandly proportioned (/), he begins, in 
turn, to lay his foundations and to build thereupon. 
But all too soon ; the structure he has reared meets 
with a similar fate, from some over-earnest and 
confident friend. There is a very striking exam- 
ple of this kind of procedure in the Southern 
Beview^ (referred to in Chapter II.), published in 
St. Louis, under the auspices and the indorsement 
of the last General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South. The editor, Eev. A. T. 
Bledsoe, LL.D., gives us two articles, the one a re- 
view of Mr. Millers little book in favor of infant 
baptism; the other a reply to strictures made by 
Mr. Miller, upon an article which the editor pub- 
lished in a previous issue of the Eevino, Some 
quotations have been, and others will be given 
from these articles. For the present it is sufficient 
to say that these two Methodist divines have the 
infant rite between them, and are crushing out its 
very life. Thus the matter has gone on, until 
every argument, and every passage of Scripture 

-For July, 1874. 



88 PEDOBAPTISM ! 

ever thought to support infant baptism, has been 
abandoned by one or more Pedobaptist divines. 
This no doubt was noticed in the preceding pages. 
In the, examination of every Scripture which has 
ever been quoted as supporting the theory, Pedo- 
baptist authorities were given to the effect — that the 
passage had nothing at all to do with the subject. 
This same thing will be done when in the follow- 
ing pages some other arguments are considered. 
The words of the sainted John L. Waller will ever 
stand as immovable as the old surf-beaten rock in 
mid-ocean: 

" No Pedobaptist has ever adduced a passage sufficiently 
obvious to satisfy the consciences of his brethren. Every 
text of Scripture ever brought to prove this doctrine, has 
been shown by Pedobaptists themselves not to prove it at 
all ! We challenge the production of one exception. [This 
challenge, though originally printed in capital letters, and 
of such long standing, has met with no response !] With 
their own hands they have pulled down their own temple, 
not leaving one stone upon another. They have torn 
up its very foundations." 

What means this confusion of ton2:ues in the 
building of this modern Babel? Has Grod put con- 
fusion among them that thej^ should not be under- 
stood by one another? The witnesses about to be 
introduced, being the zealous advocates of infant 
baptism, are all of course biased in that way, if 
biased at all, and having thoroughly studied the 
New Testament, they will certainly give the most 
favorable testimony possible. Surely you will be- 
lieve them. Their concessions are of two kinds : 
those relating to particular passages, and those re- 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 89 

lating to the New Testament as a whole. Many of 
the former, and a few of the latter kind, have 
ah^eady been given. The ones now to be given re- 
late to the New Testament as a whole. As each 
witness takes the stand the simple question put to 
him is this : " In all of your study and searching in 
the ]^ew Testament Scriptures^ have you seen there 
a single command^ or an example for infant bap- 
tism, or are they perfectly silent on the subject? 
Give us honestly, now, your testimony." And here 
it is. Notice closely the names of the witnesses and 
the testimony which they bear. 
Moses Stuart"^ says : . 

^^ Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New 
Testament relative to it (infant baptism), I do not find. 
Nor with my views of the subject do I need them." . . 

Dr. Wood| (in his Lectures on Infant Baptism," 
p. 11) says : 

^' It is a plain case that there is no express precept re- 
specting infant baptism in our Sacred Writings. The proof, 
then, that infant baptism is a divine institution must be 
made out in another way." 

N^eander, the Church Historian (in Church His- 
tory, Vol. I. p. 311), says : 

" Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men 
were accustomed to conceive of baptism smd faith, as strictly 
connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant 
baptism from apostoHc institution." 

Limborch (in Com. Syst. Dinvin. B. 5, ch. xxii. 

sec. 2) says: 

'••Mode and Subjects of Baptism, p. 190. 

tQuoted in Pendleton's '* Three Keasons," p. 30. i 



90 PEDOBAPTISM : 

a There is no instance which can be produced from 
which it may indisputably be inferred, that any child was 
baptized by the apostles." 

Dr. Field (on the Churchj p. 375) says : 

^' The baptism of infants is therefore named a tradition, 
because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the 
apostles did baptize infants; nor any express precept there 
found that they should do so." 

Robert Barclay (Apology, Propo. 12) says : 

''As to the baptism of infants, it is a mere human tradi- 
tion, for which neither precept nor practice is to be found 
in the Scriptures." 

Dr. "Wall^ who wrote the History of Infant Bap- 
tism, for which he received a vote of thanks from 
the assembled clergy of the English Church, says 
(in its Introd. pp. 1, 55) : 

'' Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by 
the apostles, there is no express mention of any in! ants." 

The above five quotations, with their references, 
which it was thought best to give, are taken from 
the Baptist Short Method,^' by Dr. E. T. Hiscox. 

Dr. Haona (in North British Ilevit'w)^ says : 

'^ Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of inf nts.'' 

^* There is absolutely not a single trace of it to be found 
in the New Testament. There iire p^issages which may be 
reconciled with it, if the practice cai only be proved to 
have existed, but there is not one toord which asserts its ex- 
istence. Nay, more • it may be argued that 1 Corinthians 



•5^Pp. 89-92. 

tQuoted in Curtis' Prog, Bap. Principles^ p. 89, 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 91 

vii. 14, IS incompatible with tlie supposition that infant 
baptism was then practiced at Corinth." 

The same author, in a more recent work,* says : 

'' No express mention is made of infants in the command 
of Christ, which instituted this rite (bnptism) ; no distinct 
case of the baptism of infants is mentioned in the sacred 
narrative." 

How exactly tliis testimony agrees with the re- 
sult of our investigation ! 

Whatever of proof may be oftered, or in what- 
ever way they attempt to make out the case, they 
must fail so long as there is no precept for it, no 
example of it, and as it was neither instituted by 
Christ, nor practiced by his apostles. The testi- 
mony of eight men^ all of whom were friends to 
the cause, has been taken ; and these are all fully 
competent of bearing testimony. A jury, faithful 
to their trust, having before them so much testi- 
monv of such \\m\i character would not hesitate a 
single moment to pronounce the verdict upon any 
case. Why will you hesitate here ? Is there room 
for the shadow of a doubt ? Ought any one to 
practice it, or in any way countenance or support 
it, as a New Testament ordinance, if there is not a 
single trace of it to be found in the iTew Testa- 
ment ? Ah ! Is it not a fearful thing to do so ? i^o 
one acquainted with the baptismal controversy 
will be surprised, or consider it an exaggeration, if ' 
it be stated that the number of witnesses could 
easily be increased to a hundred, or even hundreds, 
all of whom would give the same testimony^ 

*Life of Christ, Vol. III. p. 310. 



92 PEDOBAPTISM : 

although Pedobaptists. "Whoever can, may recon- 
cile the practice of these men with their testimony. 
That is none of the concern of this work. Not 
their opinion^ or their practiGej is what is now 
sought ; but simply their testimony as to a question 
of fact. And as honest men they testify ^ with one 
accord, " the ScripiuTe knows nothing about infant 
taptisni^ Only one more witness will be called to 
the stand. His testimony may have more influence 
with some because it is of later date. 

Put the same question to him as to the others : 
" In all your study and searching in the New 
Testament Scriptures^ have you seen there a single 
command^ or an example for infant baptism ; or are 
ih^j perfectly silent on the subject? '^ 

Rev. A. T. Bledsoe (in the Methodist Review^ a 
Quarterly of more tlian a dozen years' standing, 
and which has received the sanction of the General 
Conference since giving his testimony to this ques- 
tion) answers :* 

" It is an article of our faitli that the ^baptism of young 
childreQ (infants) is in any wise to be retained m the Church, 
as most agreeable to the institutions of Christ.'' But yet, with 
all our se:)rching, we have been unable to find, in the New 
Testament, a, single express declaration or WORD, in favor of 
infant baptism. We justify the rite, therefore, solely on 
the ground of logical inference, and not on any express 
word of Christ or his Apostles. This may, perhaps, be 
deemed by some of our readers a strange position for a 
pedobaptist. It is by no meaDs, however, a singular opin- 
ion. Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the 
same conclusion; ESPECIALLY since the New Testa- 
ment HAS been subjected TO A CLOSER, MORE CONSCIEN- 

*The Southern Review for April, 1874, p. 334. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 93 

TIOUS, AND MORE CANDID EXEGESIS, than was formerly 
practiced by controversialists^ 

Stronger testimony than this against infant bap- 
tism could not be given. It is a master stroke ; 
and the stroke of a friend. Brutus has stabbed 
Caesar. Before such a concession, it is no wonder 
that some of his brethren trembled for the cause 
of Pedobaptism. Notice the italicized words (the 
emphasis is mine) and is not the whole sentence a 
marvel ; especially, coming from one generally so 
true to logic ? lie seems to be chafing under the 
bridle that holds him. Although neither Christ 
nor his apostles said one word about infant bap- 
tism, yet he inust stand trice to his ChxircKs creeds 
and infant baptism must be retained in any wise. 
And feeling that it must have some justification, 
and that it has none in the words of Christ or his 
apostles, he ''justifies the rite, therefore, solely on 
the ground of logical infer tnceP 

" Logical inference," indeed ! But how can you 
have a '' logical irference^'' when there is not even 
a word from which to start ? It is simply ionj^ossi- 
hie! Without words there can be no premises; 
and without premises there can be no " logical in- 
ference" or conclusion. And now as there is not 
in the N^w Testament even a '' word in favor of 
infant baptism," he must go outside that book — 
beyond the teachings of Christ and the apostles — 
to find his premises, from which to get his '' logical 
inference." "Would you not like to see his premises 
and his conclusions ? And what would they be 



94 PEDOBAPTISM : 

worth so far as a New Testament ordinance is con- 
cerned? In that book alone can you find your 
premises ; and in it, Dr. Bledsoe says, there is not 
even a '' wokd in favor of infant baptism." Ee- 
read his testimony. It will do you good. His candor 
and honesty are certainly commendable, even if his 
logic does happen to limp. 

In the following number of his Eevieio (pp. 229, 
230) the Doctor, while ridiculing the ''inductive 
method," as used by Mr. Miller in supporting in- 
fant baptism, says : 

^^ And as for induction [i. e,^ tlie grouping together of 
scriptural facts on the subject] there is absolutely no place 
or use for it in the proof of infant baptism [that is true, 
for there are no "scriptural facts" on the subject to be 
gathered]. As the premises in this controversy are sup- 
plied either by the words of Scripture [not by these surely, 
for in the Scriptures there is not a '*word in favor of 
infant baptism."], or the facts of history [nor from these, 
for they can not prove that a New Testament ordinance, 
about which neither Christ nor his apostles said even a 
" word "]. so induction has nothing whatever to do with it. 
All we have to do, indeed, ia this controversy, is to start 
from the premises already furnished to hand [but there are 
none furnished — they must be found in the New Testament 
— and yet it is conceded " with all our searching, we 

HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND IN THE NeW TESTAMENT 
A SiNGLE EXPRESS DECLARATION OR WORD IN FAVOR OF 

INFANT BAPTISM." ^ And not on any express word of 
Christ or his apostles " does he found his argument, but 
must get the premises OUTSIDE THE BIBLE], and 
thence infer or prove the duty of infant baptism by the use 
of the ' deductive method,' " 

Is not this a most glaring absurdity ? An egre- 
gious blunder in logic ? One acquainted with the 
writings of Dr. Bledsoe would hardly expect to 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 95 

find him making such a bhmder. Verily, Horace 
was right : it is true that good old Homer does 
sometimes nod. Is it singular in the least that 
Baptists in their study of the New Testament 
should reach the same conclusion with Pedobap- 
tists, that the Scriptures are silent concerning the 
baptism of infants? And does not silence become 
the Pedobaptists on this subject ? 

*' But/' says Dr. Bledsoe,^ ^' what we wish, in this con- 
nection, to emphasize most particularly, is the wonderful 
contrast between the silence of Christ and the everlasting 
clamors of his Church, 'though he uttered not one express 
word on the subject of infant baptism, yet. on this very sub- 
ject, have his professed followers filled the world with sound 
and fury. The Apostles imitated his example.'' 

And so ought Pedobaptists. "Why must it be 
pressed upon the Baptists, ad nauseam, to practice 
a rite as of divine appointment, but about which 
the divine record says not one word? Is not such 
a course deserving of rebuke ? 

But the advocates of the rite rely upon tJie 
silence of the Scriptures to prove it to be from 
heaven ! To them '' the siltnce of the Savior and 
the Scriptures is the voice of God in thunder tones 
engrafting upon the gospel a human invention V 
But the ears of Baptists are not so acute as to hear 
the awful voice of silence issuing a positive com- 
mand ! Silence may forhid but can never com- 
mand, "- The ITew Testament is silent about — 
does Yiot forhid — the baptism of infants, and there- 
fore it is right." The suppressed premise which 

*The Southern Review for April, 1874, p. 336. 



96 PEDOBAPTISM : 

must be supplied and established before the argu- 
ment can avail is, everything about which the New 
Testament is silent, or does not forbid, is right. It 
is silent about the baptism of bells, therefore the 
baptism of bells is right. It is silent — does not 
forbid — the consecration of the bastismal waters, 
therefore to do that is right. It does not forbid the 
partaking of the Lord's Supper by infants, there- 
fore that is right. Carlstadt demanded of Luther : 
'' Where has Christ commanded us to elevate the 
host ?" Luther replied : " Where has he fovhidden 
it ?" It is demanded by Baptists : '^ Where has 
Christ commanded the baptism of infants T^ It is 
responded by Pedobaptists : " Where has he for- 
hidden it ?" By such a line of argument all the 
wild mummeries of Rome may be as clearly and 
as scripturally (!!) sustained and shown to be of 
divine appointment as the dogma of infant bap- 
tism ! ! 

It is too absurd to deserve comment. And he 
who resorts to it, is very like -the drowning man 
grasping at a straw. And yet it is the common 
resort of even intelligent Pedobaptists. When 
Dr. Bledsoe had pressed the argument from the 
silence of Scripture, even Mr. Miller, a Methodist 
preacher, saw the weakness of the argument, and 
aptly responded :* 

^' We never knew before that absolute silence upon a sub- 
ject, especially when that subject had neverh^Qii mentioned, 
could be a ' decisive reason ' for it. Let us apply this style 
of reasoning (?) to adult baptism. Suppose Christ had 

^Quoted in the Southern Review for July, 1874, p. 172. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 97 

never ' ordained ' adult baptism. Dr. B. says he ^ did not 
indeed ordain infant baptism expressly.' Apiin, suppose 
* no express word of the Apostles ' had ever been spoken for 
it. Dr. B says, ' We justfy the rite . , . not on any 
express word of Christ or his Apostles.' Now, we say, 
suppose this absolute silence reigned through the New 
Testament with reference to baptizing men aod women, 
would any man of ordinary sanity imagine tli t this silence 
is a ^decisive reason ' for baptizing men and women? This 
only pieces adult baptism where Dr. B. places infant 
baptism. The fact is, the argument ex sueiiUo is not 
worth a fig, except as a purely coll iterai or presumptive 
process. If Christ never ordained the baptism of infants, 
and if his apostles never uttered a word in favor of it, 
then their silence can not be taken as a ' decisive reason ' 
for it, any more than their silence can be taken as a ^ deci- 
sive reason ' for the Roman hierarchy, concerning which 
they uttered no word of approval." 

That is so. And yet it can not be denied — nay 
it is admitted — that concerning the dogma of Pedo- 
baptism a silence as profound as the midnight 
stillness of the grave reigns over every page of the 
divine oracles ! The stillness is so profound that 
it becomes audible ! ! 

Christ commands to baptize believers, Pedo- 
baptists have added, '' and their children." And 
have stigmatized, persecuted and put to death the 
followers of Jesus, simply because they prefer to 
'' obey God rather than men." jSTumbers of Bap- 
tists have sealed that preference witli their life 
blood. Until Pedobaptists can show an example or 
command from the Lord Jesus Christ, whom alone 
we obey as our only Sovereign and Lawgiver, 
surely they should cease to ask intelligent persons 
to believe this dogma. 



98 PEB0BAPTI8M : 

Pedolaptism : Is it from heaven ok of men ? 
The question^ witli the foregoing facts, is left with 
the candid reader to answer before his God, to 
whom he must render account in the last great 
day. It is no marvel that Prof. Lange, one of the 
foremost of foreign Pedobaptist writers^ should be 
forced to the conclusion that r^ 

^^ All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New 
Testament fail. It is totally opposed to tbe spirit of the 
apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the 
New Testament." 

Amen. Then it is of men, and not from heaven. 



^Baptist Short Method, p. 92, 



CHAPTER yil 



Upon this standing question the decision has 
been rendered. And that decision can never be 
reversed. It was given by the New Testament. 
And from its decisions no appeal can be made. 
By close examination, and also by the most sweep- 
ing concessions of many able Pedobaptist writers, 
the conclusion was reached, that in all the New 
Testament there is not one word in favor of infant 
haptism. And so the decision stands unalterably 
fixed, it is of men. Having failed, signally and 
confessedly failed, to establish their practice by 
the New Testament, lohich is the Christian^ s law 
hoohj Pedobaptists have abandoned that, and 
turned to the Old Testament, hoping to find some 
relief for their hard pressed cause. It seems that 
they are desirous of being " entangled again with 
the yoke of bondage." 

But in the Westminstei' Confession it is affirmed 
— and in this all are agreed — that : '' Baptism is 
a sacrament (an ordinance) of the New Testament^ 
ordained by Jesus Christ." Every question, there- 
fore, concerning baptism, as to its action, its de- 
sign and its subjects, must be referred to and 
settled by that book — wherein Christ has ordained 

(99) 



100 pedobaptism: 

it. This is certainly reasonable. And yet Pedo- 
baptists, after subscribing to the above article of 
their own creed, will not abide by it, but rush to 
the Old Testament to learn who are the subjects 
of a ISTew Testament ordinance ! ! And from the 
very fact, that the advocates of infant baptism, 
abandoning the teachings of Christ and the apos- 
tolic w^ritings, seek refuge among the forms and 
ceremonies of Judaism, it is perfectly clear that 
the rite itself can not be sustained by the New 
Testament. " Baptism,'^ say they, " is a 'New 
Testament ordinance, ordained by JesTis Christ.'^ 
And then admit, as has been- quoted over and 
over again, in the preceding chapters, that infant 
baptism was ordained neither by Christ nor his 
apostles; that there was not a trace to be found 
of infant baptism, not a word in its favor, in the 
]N"ew Testament. Where is the Pedobaptist who 
is willing to stake his cause upon the teaching 
of the New Testament^ " especially since^^"^ as Dr. 
Bledsoe says, " the New Testament has been sub- 
jected to a closer^ a more conscieritioits^ and more 
candid exegesis than was formerly practiced f^ 

1^0, they turn from this and fall back upon an 
assumed identity of the Jewish Church* and the 
Church of Christ, and the assumption that baptism 
came in the room of circumcision. Dr. Kicef thus 
sets forth " the identity of the churches," as it is 

*" Jewish Church "is simply a Pedobaptist phrase for the Jew- 
ish Theocracy^ which was no church at all, in the strict IS'ew Testa- 
ment sense of the word^ church, 

tLexington Debate, page 285. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 101 

held ; and to make strong laiignage stronger, he 
puts each word in italics : 

" The CJiurch, then, is the same under the Jewish and 
Christian dispensations — the same into which God did, hy 
positive laio, put believers and their children.^^ 

The argument drawn from this in favor of in- 
fant baptism, stated in a syllogism, stands about 
as follows : The Christian Church is the same as 
the Jewish Church ; infants were members in the 
Jewish Church ; therefore infants are members in 
the Christian Church. Please observe; this argu- 
ment, the premises being conceded, proves — • 
what ? Infant baptism ? isTo ; but infant member- 
ship. These are two very difierent things, though 
equally erroneous. What connection subsists be- 
tween infant haptism and infant church-mem- 
bership has never yet been determined by even 
Pedobaptists themselves. Some say their baptism 
brings them into the Church ; w^hile others say 
their being in the Church entitles them to baptism. 
So here again, as all along the line of defense, is 
this confusion of tongues. Dr. Samuel Miller, of 
Princeton, says -.^ 

'*The children of professing Christians are already in the 
Church. They were born members. Their baptism did 
not make them members. It was a public ratification of 
their membership. They were baptized because they were 
members." 

Dr. Rice, on the other hand, says:f 



*Pendleton's " Three Eeasons," p. 55. 
tLex. Debate, p. 280. 



102 PEDOBAPTISM : 

^' Baptism is now the initiatory rite, and botli (infants 
and adults) must receive baptism. ^ ^ The conclusion 
fippears inevitable, that they (infants) still have the right to 
be in the Church, and of course to enter by the door — 
Christian baptism." 

That is, entering through the door of baptism 
into the Church, they are members because they 
have been baptized. Other authorities, speaking 
equally ex catJiedra, and equally antagonistic, could 
be quoted. Indeed Matthew Henry can be quoted 
on both sides of this question. Is it not a little 
singular, to say the least, that Pedobaptists can 
not agree among themselves upon one settled, def- 
finite reason for baptizing infant children ? Some 
baptize them because they are in the Church ; 
others to bring them into the Church ; some be- 
cause thev are '' federally holv ; '^ others '' to wash 
away the guilt of original sin ; ^^ others, perhaps, 
as Mr. C. W. Miller, because (as quoted by Dr. 
Bledsoe*) : 

'•' Little cliildren occupy precisely the relation to t/esus 
Christ, ichich a regenerated^ justified^ sanctified adult sus- 
tains' II 

AVere this difficultv settled anions: themselves, 
it would relieve the defenders of the dogma of 
a very heavy incubus. The suggestion made by 
Dr. Pendleton is a good one. For their special 
benefit it is here repeated : 

^' Tt vrould be well for the various tribes of Pedobaptists 
to call a general council and try and decide why iofants 
should be baptized. The reasons in favor of the practice 

^'Soufhem Eeview for July, 1874, p. 181. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 103 

are, at present, so contradictory and so destructive of one 
another that it must involve the advocates of the system in 
great perplexity. Many, though, would object to such a 
council, because, for obvious reasons, the Pope of Eome 
should preside over it, and others would object because it 
would probably be in session as long as the Council of 
Trent. Still, if one good reason could be furnished for in- 
fant baptism, by the combined wisdom of Catholics and 
Protestants, it would be more satisfactory than all the rea- 
sons which are now urged." 

But is the Oliurcli of Christ the same as the 
Jewish Church ? Even the most rigid Pedobap- 
tists will not give an unqualified aflBrmative to 
this simple question. Hence the appearance in 
their writings of such expressions as the follow- 
ing: " Sul>sta7itial oneness I ^^ ''The same in suh- 
stance ;'' and even Dr. Rice, after making the bold 
statement as given above, speaks of the "chief 
and only important difference between the two 
dispensations.'' Receive in toto the sameness of 
the churches, and if consistent, you must go even 
beyond Roman Catholicism. No one would surely 
have the temerity to deu}^ that there are gj-^eat 
changes^ and clfferences between the two churches. 
Then it must be shown clearly and unequivocally 
that these changes and differ e7iGes did not, in the 
leasts affect the conditions of meinhershijp: or, in 
other words, that all who were in, or were entitled 
to membership in, the Jewish Church, are in, or are 
entitled to membership in, the Church of Christ; 
and that, too, vpooi precisely the same terms. Until 
this be done the identity theory avails nothing to 
infant baptism. To do this is a herculean task. 



104 PEDOBAPTISM : 

"Not even tlie eloquence of Br. Hodge can make it seem 
probable that tbe Jewisb nation was an exact model of the 
Christian Chnrch in respect to membership^ when in 
almost every other respect it was unlike that church.'^ 

Admitting, and you most admit, that there were 
^80ine changes made in the character of members^ 
and also in the terms of membership, then how 
are we to know who are to be received Mnto 
Christ's Church, and allowed to partake of its 
ordinances, and what the terms of membership 
now? Or, in other words^ to what extent do these 
admitted differences affect the terms of member- 
ship in tills eontimted ehurehf The Netu Test- 
ament is our only guide. The argument reductio 
ad a'bsurdiim has shown, in the preceding chap- 
ter, that it will not do to accept that which is 
not forlidden in the New Testament. Only that 
must be received which is positively commanded. 
The golden and the only safe rule is to obey 
Christ — ''to do nothing either more or less or 
different from what he has told us." But from 
the New Testament, where Christ's commands 
are recorded, nothing can be learned about either 
the baptism of infants or their membership in 
Ms church. For, as Dr. Bledsoe says : 

" With all our searching we have been unable to find in 
the New Testament a single express declaration or word in 
favor of infant baptism ; " and "hundreds of learned Pedo- 
baptists have come to the same conclusion ; especially since 
the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more 
conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly 
practiced/' 

Granting, therefore, for argument sake, that the 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF JWEN ? 105 

churches are the same, it by no means follows 
that infants are in the church, or should be bap- 
tized. But are the chicvches one ? Let the candid 
reader, seeking above all things to know tJie triitli, 
consider the following facts^ and say whether 
there exists that ^' identity'''^ claimed by Pedo- 
baptists. First', If the two churches are the same^ 
then all the Jtius, as luell as all who had heen pros- 
elyted to the Jevnsh religion and hrought into the 
Jewish Churchy were memhtrs of the Church of 
Christ while he was on earth. This statement you 
must accept as true, or reject the "identity theory." 
Just think of it. Those who Avere Christ's most 
inveterate enemies while on earth, and against 
whom he aimed his heaviest and severest blows, 
were the Lawyers, the Scribes, the Sadducees, 
and Pharisees ; and yet upon this hypothesis all 
of these same parties were prominent members 
in his church. There are many portions of Scrip- 
ture that might be read just here with great 
profit. Turn to Matthew xxiii. 13-39. Listen to the 
keen, pealing words of the Master, his very soul 
blazing with righteous indignation. Think you 
that those-of whom he spoke were members of his 
church? What epithets he uses — ''hypocrites," 
"blind guides," "fools,'^ as '^ whited sepulchers,'' 
'^serpents," ''generation of vipers,^' ''children of 
hell" — the strongest denunciatory words ever 
used by the Son of God ! And yet, the " identity 
theory " makes these persons members of the Chris- 
tian Church. "Woe unto you Scribes and Phar- 
isees, hypocrites! for ye are like whited sepul- 



106 PEDOBAPTISM : 

chers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, 
but are within full of dead men's bones, and of 
all uncleanliness. Even so ye outwardly appear 
righteous unto men, but within ye are full of 
hypocrisy and iniquity." The Savior charged them 
with '' the blood of the prophets," and *' with all 
the righteous blood shed upon the earth." "Ye 
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye 
escape the damnation of hell?" Yet all these 
were members in good standing in the Church of 
Christ, if it was identical with the Jewish Church! 
How monstrously absurd! And if character will 
not exclude them, surely the words of the Master 
will : " Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hyp- 
ocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven 
against men : for ye neither go in yourselves^ 
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." 
Pedobaptists tell us that by '' kingdom of heaven" 
is meant the "visible Church" of Christ, which is 
the ^' same'^' as "the Jewish Church," But it is 
clear that these parties who " shut up the kingdom 
of heaven," were in the Jewish Church and outside 
of "the kingdom of heaven" (or, as it is called 
"the visible church"), "for ye neither go in your- 
selves^"^ etc. The Church of Christ, which they 
would not enter, and the Jewish Church of which 
they were members, can not therefore be the same 
church — unless perchance a person can be both in 
and out of the same thing at the same time. And 
those persons who were entering were Jews, and 
therefore members of the Jewish Church already, 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 107 

and therefore could not be entering the Jewish 
Church. They were in the Jewish Church, but 
being out of^ were entering the Church of Christ. 
How could persons in the Jewish Church be en- 
tering the same church ? Pedobaptists may recon- 
cile these difficulties. Their system is full of con- 
tradictions. 

But hear further the scathing words of Him who 
spake as never man spake : " "Woe unto you, Scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and 
land to make one proselyte" (?'. <?., bring a man 
into the Jewish Church) ; " and when he is made '^ 
(or brought in) " j^e make him twofold more the 
child of hell than yourselves." What ! a person a 
member in Christ's Church and a '^ child of hell " ! 
A person brought into the Church of Christ made 
" twofold more a child of hell," than those already 
members ! Yes ; if the Church of Christ is the 
same as the Jewish Church ! Oh, shade of Aris- 
totle, whither hast thou gone ? These are not ab- 
surdities, but verities, if the '' identity theory " be 
true. As, therefore, these must be accepted, or it 
rejected, Pedobaptists prefer to do the former, start- 
ling as it is; but Baptists, the latter. They y/\\\ 
not, they can not, accede to any theory that drives 
to such monstrous and hideous absurdities. Were 
the Jews members of the Chv/roh of Christ f Then 
his church cried, Away w^ith him, away with him ; 
crucify him ; let his blood be upon us and our chil- 
dren ; nay, do not release unto us our head^ our 
king, but let him die, and release Barabbas, the 
robber and the murderer. 



108 " PEDOBAPTISM : 

Moreover, Paul was a respectable member of tlie 
Jewish Church, vet he persecuted and made 
" havoc ^' of the Church of Clirist. AVas he a 
member of the church he was persecuting, and 
ao'ainst which liis whole soul burned with furious 
rage? Did he, from the influence of that Damas- 
cus vision, and from the change wrought in him by 
the Holy Spirit, make uo change in his cliurch 
relations f The question needs no answer. 

And on the dav of Pentecost, that o^randest of 
all days in the history of Christ's Church, three 
thousand souls, all of whom were Jews, " tcere 
added^' unto his chureJi. How could these persons, 
already members in the Jewish Churchy be added 
to his cliurch — if it was the same? "And the Lord 
added to t/^e cliurch daily such as should be saved,'' 
or those who are saved. But these additions were 
made not to the Jewish Churchy but to the Church 
of Christ Many Jews, even many of the priests, 
became obedient to the faith, and were put out of 
the Jewish Church for o:oina' into the Church of 
Christ. It is impossible for them to be the same. 

This theory, moreover, would force us to another 
absurdity, viz : If it be true, then all the Jews of 
to-day are members of the Church of Christ. Re- 
call the svUoii-ism iust o^iven, and with a slio;ht 
change the fallacy of the argument is very mani- 
fest. Thus : The Christian Church is the same as 
the Jewish Church; but (instead of infants, write) 
all the Jews, Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, as 
well as all the proselytes to their religion, were 



IS IT rr^OM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 109 

members of the Jewish Church ; therefore, all the 
Jews, the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, as 
well as all the proselytes to their religion, were 
members of the Christian Church. Pedobaptists 
may have the argument for what it is worth. Its 
weakness will certainly appear to the most careless 
reader of these pages. 

Agaix : Both Jews and GentiliS icere received 
into the Church of Christ upon precisely the same 
terms. 

Into his kingdom and into his church they both 
must enter. Xeither were in it by virtue of their 
birthright: This fact is worthy of great emphasis. 
Descent from Abraham entitled no one to member- 
ship in, and the immunities of, the Chnrch of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. '' Think not to say within your- 
selves, we have Abraham to our father,""^ etc. 
As little, to-dav does our ancestrv, however beloved 
and honored, give a passport to church-member- 
ship, to its ordinances, or to the joys of heaven. 
As the Jews were born into the Jewish Common- 
wealth, so both Jew and Gentile in the kingdom 
of Christ, are '^'born, not of blood, nor of the will 
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.''f 
Even to Nicodemns, a distinguished Jewish Rabbi, 
a member of their highest court, Christ said: J 
" Marvel not that I said unto thee [Jewish Rabbi 
as thou art], ye [Jews, even you who are members 
of the Sanhedrim, the highest of your nation] must 

■^Matthew iii. 9. 

tJohn i. 13. \ 

JJoliu iii. 7 



110 PEDOBAPTISM : 

he horn again^ That you are Abraham's children 
will not avail, for all " that which is born of the flesh 
is flesh, and [only] that which is born of the Spirit 
is spirit." That you have observed all the forms 
and ceremonies of the temple worship, according 
to the demands of Judaism; that you were "cir- 
cumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of 
the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, 
as touching the law a Pharisee ;" still all this does 
not avail. For the Jews stood before God on the 
same footing with the Gentiles who " were without 
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of 
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of prom- 
ise, having no hope, and without God in the 
world." " Neither circumcision availeth anything, 
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." And 
"now in Christ Jesus (both the Jew and the Gen- 
tile), who sometime were far off are made nigh l^y 
the blood of Christ." And " there is no difference 
between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord 
over all is rich unto all that call upon him."^ In 
the New Birth, as to its necessities as well as to 
its blessings, there is no distinction of nationnli- 
ties. With respect to tliat especially, '' there is 
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum- 
cision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but 
Christ is all, and in all."f And in tliis " there is 
neither Jew nor Greek, their is neither bond nor 
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are 
all one in Christ Jesus."! '' Ye must be born again " 



*Komans x. 12. 
tColossians iii. 11, 
JGalatians iii. 28. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? Ill 

is a universal necessity. For " except a man [^. ^., 
any one] be born from above, he can not see the 
kingdom of God."* The same gospel is preached to 
all. Hence Paul preached, ''- testifying both to the 
Jews^ and also to the Greelcs^ repentance toward God 
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Ohrist."f If, then, 
it be true, and certainly none will deny it, that the 
Jew as well as the Gentile, had to enter the Church 
of Christ, and that they both entered on precisely 
the same terms^ does it not follow, conclusively, 
that his church was a body entirely different from 
and independent of the Jewish Church? Else the 
Jew would have been a member in the Church of 
Christ, by virtue of his being a Jew, and could not 
have been added to it^ as the Scripture says lie 
was. These are only a few of the facts which are 
at war with the '' identity theorj^," and which no 
mortal man can ever harmonize with it. 

"Is the Christian Church that rejected the great 
body of the Jewish nation, the same with the 
Jewish Church, which by God's appointment con- 
tained the whole nation? Was the church into 
which its members were born, the same with the 
church whose members must be born from above- 
born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor 
of the will of man, but of God ? Was the church 
that admitted every stranger to its passover, with- 
out any condition of faith or character, merely 
complying with a certain regulation that gave cir- 
cumcision to their males, without any condition of 

-''John iii. 3. 
tActs XX. 21. 



112 PEDOBAPTISM : 

faith or character, the same with the church which 
requires faith and true holiness in all who enjoy 
its ordinances? Was the church that contained 
the Scribes and Pharisees, and Sadducees, the most 
cruel, determined, open and malignant enemies of 
Christ — the same with that church into which such 
persons could not enter without a spiritual birth V 
There is but one answer to be given to all these 
questions. And that will be given by every in- 
telligent, unbiased person. It is, No. 

Finally; Christ made out oHwaiii — the Jews and 
the Gentiles — one new man^ i, ^., one new hody or 
church.^ And that new church was his church, 
composed of and open to the twain— ho\h. Gentiles 
and Jews, and in no sense one with the Jewish 
Church. '^For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
into one lody-, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, 
whether we be bond or free; and have been all 
made to drink into one Spirit."f There is no such 
thing as the identity of the churches. And fur- 
ther, only for the sake of argument has the Jewish 
Church been spoken of as a reality. But there is 
no such thing. There was the ''Commonwealth of 
Israel," the Jewish Theocracy, or the Jewish 
nation, as there was a Gentile nation out of both 
which (of the twain) Christ obtained the materials 
to make his new gIiutgTi. But this was no such 
thing as a church in the true sense of the term. 
And never was there such a thing as a cTiurch un- 



^'Sphesians ii. 15. 

ti Corinthians xii. 13. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 113 

til Christ established his. Away then goes the ar- 
gument founded upon church identity. And with 
it goes one of the strongest pillars of Pedobap- 
tism — its most colossal shaft is broken. It is use- 
less to urge this as an argument for infant mem- 
bership or infaut baptism. 

'^ And yet upon this identity Mr. Hibbard says, ^ we rest 
the weight of the whole argument for infant baptism.' It 
rests upon a foundation of sand. Mr. H. is in a dilemma. 
He may choose either horn of the dilemma and it will gore 
him unmercifully. If such a foundation can sustain the 
argument for infant baptism, there is no weight in the argu- 
meat ; but if the weight of the argument crushes the 
foundation, there is no solidity in the foundation." 



CHAPTER VIII. 



Closely allied with the subject discussed in the 
last chapter, and, in fact, depending upon that for 
whatever of strength it may have, is the question 
of ^^ Baptism in the room of circumcision,'^'^ And 
all the arguments made to bear against the "iden- 
tity theory," can be pressed with equal strength 
against this question. As has been seen, Pedo- 
baptists give very different and conflicting reasons 
for admitting infants to the ordinance of Christian 
baptism. In fact, Dr. Bashnell, one of them, does 
not hesitate to aflSrm that ^ '^ No settled oi>\n\on^ of 
the grounds and import of infant baptism have ever 
been attained to" by them alL 

In his Life of Christ^ Dr. llanna, says: 

'' Why^ then, do we baptize infants f No express men- 
tion is made of infants in the command of Christ which 
instituted this rite (of baptism) ; no distinct case of the 
baptism of infants is mentioned in the sacred narratives. 
Are we not acting, then, without a divine warrant ? are we 
not contradicting the inherent nature and design of this 
ordinance when infants are baptized by us? If it be true, 
as we are distinctly taught it is, that in the spiritual 
commonwealth of the church , baptism takes that place 
which in the Jewish commonweal ih was occupied by cir- 

^Howell's " Evils of Infant Baptism,'^ p, 90. 
tYoL III. p. aio, 

(114) 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 115 

cumcision, each being f lio initiatory or admission rite of the 
society, then it will at once appear that there is scarcely an 
objection to the baptism of infants, which might not with 
equal weight be urged against the ciraimcision of infants." 

There are several things in this quotation to be 
noticed. And first, all that the Doctor had writ- 
ten on the nature and design of baptism, preceding 
this quotation, could be presented as an argument 
against baptizing unintelligent infants. Hence 
his question — ''Why thenT^ etc., as if he felt the 
necessity of reconciling that practice with the de- 
sign of the ordinance. He makes no attempt to 
do that. For such an attempt would be useless. 
Tlie silence of the New Testament on the subject 
is also unreservedly conceded — that neither in the 
command of Christ which instituted baptism, nor 
in the sacred narratives, which give an account of 
the baptisms administered by the apostles, is there 
anything said about iiifants or infant haptism. 
That is unaccountable if the practice be of divine 
appointment and not of men. And the question 
is very pertinent: "Are we not, then [in view of 
this fact], acting without divine warrant? Are 
we not contradicting the inherent nature and de- 
sign of this ordinance [as he himself had just be- 
fore given it] when infants are baptized by us ?" 
Most unquestionably you are, if God has said noth- 
ing about it, as is confessed over and over again. 

Nor does he agree with many of his distinguished 
brethren that infants are baptized because they 
are alreadj^ in the church, but rather they come in 
by baptism as the initiatory (?) rite. Resting the 



116 PEDOBAPTISM : 

whole theory on the simple supposition that bap- 
tism has taken the place of the rite of circumcision, 
the Doctor, feeling that this is his only refuge (nor 
does he feel very secure and confident in it), says: 
"There is scarcely an objection to the laptism 
of infants, which might not with equal weight 
be urged against the circitmcision of infants." 
What if that be true; or even more than that, 
and he had said not a single objection? Would 
that have proved any thing in favor of infant bap- 
tism? Would that ftict have been conclusive that 
the rite was of divine appointment? Would that 
have atoned for the silence of the New Testament 
on the subject? Is the difficulty, — that Christ said 
nothing about it, although lie instituted the ordi- 
nance of baptism, and that the apostles said nothing 
about it, although laboring under his command, — : 
swept away by the simple announcement that all 
the objections urged against this dogma can be 
urged against the rite of circumcision ? Is it not 
a marvel that any one^ to say nothing of Dr. Hanna, 
should have thought so? 

But there is 07ie serious oljection^ at least, which 
can be made against the one but not against the 
other, viz: The one is authorized by ?i plain^ pos- 
itive command from the God of heaven, while 
about the other there is not a single word in all the 
oracles of God. The one is of divine appointment, 
the other is not. God commanded to circumcise 
the child, but where has he commanded its bap- 
tism ? If he has done so, is it not strange that all 
the Pedobaptists in the world have never found 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 117 

it? And when one declares he has fonnd a' com- 
mand to baptize infants, all the rest laugh him to 
scorn, so preposterous is his claim! Give the 
same reason for baptizing as the Jews did for cir- 
cumcising the infant, viz, 2i positive command from 
God^ and the controversy is at an end. 

But let it be asked again why this frightful 
abandoning of the New Testament ? We must 
abide the decisions of tJiat looh And it is here 
reasserted, therefore, with great emphasis, that by 
THE New Testament infant baptism must stand or 
FALL. '^If baptism was ordained by Jesus Christ, 
we should allow him to decide who are to be bap- 
tized, and not refer the matter to either Abraham 

or Moses Was there ever such a course 

adopted before to establish a divine ordinance? 
Ask a Jew why his ancestors for so many centu- 
ries observed the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost 
and the Tabernacles, and he will tell you that God 
commanded them to do so. Ask a Christian why 
believers should be baptized and partake of the 
Lord's Supper? And his response will be, these are 
injunctions of Jesus Christ. Ask a Pedobaptist, 
however, why infants ought to be baptized? And 
he will at once plunge into the mazes of Juda- 
ism . . . • insisting most strenuously on the 
substitution of baptism for circumcision.'' This is 
a strange method of proving that infants ought to 
be baptized. Give a com77iand for it — just one — 
and then argument is not needed. The argument, 
which is generally constructed by Pedobaptists 
upon this assumption in support of their '' the- 



118 PEDOBAPTISM : 

ory — a huge inverted pyramid resting upon a 
single point, and that point a mere assumption, 
and one in itself unwarrantable and unreasona- 
ble " — may also be stated in a syllogism about as 
follows : Baptism has come in the room of cir- 
cumcision. But infants were circumcised. There- 
fore, infants must be baptized. This does not 
appear very conclusive. In fact it has been aban- 
doned by many very able Pedobaptist divines. 
And this further justifies a remark already made, 
viz: that every argument ever advanced in favor 
of infant baptism has at some time been abandoned 
even by the defenders of the rite. 

In the Baptist edition of his work on Baptism,* 
Moses Stuart says : 

'' How unwary, too, are many excellent men in contend- 
ing for infant baptism, on the ground of the Jewish anal- 
ogy of circumcision. The covenant of circumcision fur- 
nishes no grounds for infant baptism." 

Some three years ago, or thereabouts, the follow- 
ing statement was published in the Religious 
Herald^ as coming from Henry Ward Beecher: 

" I concede and I assert, first, that infant baptism is no 
where commanded in the New Testament. Secondly, I 
affirm that the cases where it is implied, as the baptism of 
whole households, are by no means conclusive and without 
doubt, and if there is no otiier basis for it than that, it is 
not safe to found it on the practice of the apostles in the 
baptism of Christian families. Therefore, I g^ve up what 
has been injudiciously used as an argument for infant bap- 
tism. And, thirdly, I assert that the doctrine that as a 
Christian ordinance it is a substitute for the circumcision 
of the Jews, is a doctrine, utterly untenahle,^^ 

"'^•Ihe Introductory Keview, p. 32. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN? 119 

Surely, there must be avery manifest weakness 
in an argument that fails to convince those most 
anxious to be convinced, and that, too, men* who 
are capable of testing an argument. 

But, beyond all this, it is wholly gratuitous to 
assume, as is done in this argument, that baptism 
is a substitute for circumcision. The Scriptures 
do not so teach. Their silence upon this is only 
equaled by their silence concerning infants being 
the subjects of Christian baptism. The facts of the 
Scriptures are contrary to any such assumption. 
In the old dispensation there were figures and 
types of Christ and his church, which were fulfilled 
in the new dispensation. And the separate parts 
of the Church of Christ may find counterparts 
there. Circumcision vms a type. But it could not 
be the type of baptism, for laptisra is also a type. 
Who ever heard of one type being the type of 
another type ? Can a shadow cast a shadow? For 
every shadow — as for both baptism and circumcis- 
ion—there must be a corresponding suhstance. 

Circumcision is the type, not of baptism, which 
is also a type^ but of regeneration; this is the cir- 
cumcision not made with hands. Regeneration^ 
or the New Birth, is the substance; circumcision is 
the shadow. Tlie rules in Hermeneutics, by 
which these things are regulated, are very simple 
and explicit. The following is recognized by all as 
sound : ''No external institution or fact in the Old 
Testament is a type of an external institution or 

*'=• Whatever be your opinion of Mr. Beecher, yoa can not deny 
his abnity to examine and weigh an argnment. 



120 PEDOBAPTISM : 

fact in the New Testament. External institutions 
or facts in the Old Testament are invariahly types 
of internal and spiritual institutions and facts in 
the New Testament." How in the world, then, 
could circumcision, an external institution of the 
Old Testament, be a type of baptism, an external 
institution of the New Testament! It is not. It 
is, however, a type of the internal^ spiritual work 
wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit in the 
New Birth, This is the circumcision of the heart. 
With this agrees Turrettine,^ the successor of the 
great John Calvin. He says : 

^^ But one type can not be sliadowed forth by another 
type," since ^' both are brought forward to represent one 
truth. So circumcision shadowed forth not haptisniy but 
the grace of regeneration ; and the passover represented not 
the Lord's Supper, but Christ set forth in the Supper." 

The regenerated have the circumcision of the 
heart, of which that in the flesh was a type. " In 
whom (Christ) also ye are circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcis- 
ion of (made by) Christ.^f "For he is not a Jew, 
which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcis- 
ion, which is outward in the flesh : But he is a Jew, 
which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of 
the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; 
whose praise is not of men, but of God.J;" 

And again. Judaism has ever been a most hos- 



'=''Howeirs Evils of Infant Baptism, p. 78. 
tColossians ii. 11. 
JKomans ii. 28, 29. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 121 

tile enemy to Christianity. And the many Jewish 
converts, in the early churches, labored most stren- 
uously to append to the simplicity of the gospel 
some of their old customs, and especially the rite 
of circumcision. And these Judaizing teachers 
troubled the churches not a little with their teach- 
ing — their talking about circumcision. And con- 
sequently the Gentile Christians became dissatis- 
fied, and complained that they did not enjoy equal 
privileges with the Jews, in not being circumcised. 

This could easily have been settled, had the 
apostle just reminded them, as the Pcdobaptists 
would do, that baptism had come in tue room of 
circumcision; that their baptism was the same as> 
and therefore equal to, the circumcision of the 
Jew, and not a whit, therefore, were tiiey behind 
the Jewish converts. But they would have at 
once responded, yes; but the Jews have hoth — ■ 
they have been baptized as well as circumcised, 
while we have only been baptized. 

But as circumcision was not substituted by bap- 
tism, the apostle could not, and therefore did not, 
respond in this supposed way. But he told the 
Gentile converts plainly, that they had a GiTGum- 
cision — one that was higher than that of the Jew, 
as the substance is more than the shadow ; even 
the circumcision of the heart, in Christ, one not 
made with hands. " In Christ ye were also circum- 
cised with a circumcision not made with hands.^'' 
"Circumcision is that of the hearty in the Spirit?'^ 

*Bible Union Translation of Colossians ii. 11. 



122 PEDOBAPTI^M : 

''Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith 
Christ hath made ns free, and he not entangled 
again with the yoJce of londage. Behold, I Paul 
say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall 
profit you nothing. For I testify again to every 
man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do 
the whole law."'^ " For we are the circumcision 
\i. 6., Jews, individually, who enjoy, not the cir- 
cumcision which is outward in the flesh, but the 
circumcision of the heart, in the spirit,] who wor- 
ship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, 
and have no confidence in the flesh."| '' As many as 
desire to make a fair show in the flesh, tliey con- 
strain you to be circumcised ; only lest they should 
suffer persecution for the cross of Christ For 
neither they themselves who are circumcised keep 
the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that 
they may glory in your flesh. Bat God forbid that 
I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, 
and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither 
circumcision [that in the flesh] availeth anything, 
nor uncircumcision, hut a new creatuvePX ''If any 
man be in Christ, lie is a new creature : old things 
are passed away ; behold, all things are become 
new."§ " For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision 
availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision ; but faith 
which worketh by love." || Such were the state- 
ments made by an inspired writer to satisfy those 

*Galatians v. 1-3. tl*hilippians iii. 3. JGalatians vi. 12-15. 
g2 Corinthians v. 17. UGalatians v. 6. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN? 123 

troubled Gentile converts, that they were equally- 
blessed with the Jews, those of the circumcision. 
And not once does he intimate that their baptism 
took the place of the circumcision of the Jew. 

And, moreover, when this same question about 
circumcision was agitating the church at Antioch, 
the whole matter was referred to the apostles at 
Jerusalem. And there before the apostles, the 
elders, and the loliole multitude of believers, it 
\fdi^ fully disGitssed and settled^ and not one word 
said, so far as the record goes, about baptism hav- 
ing come in the place of circumcision. And then 
'' it pleased the apostles^ and elders^ with the whole 
churchy to send chosen men of their own number 
to Antioch." And by these chosen men a letter 
was sent to the church at that place. But in this 
letter^ there is not the slightest intimation that 
baptism had taken the place of circumcision. This 
is sigoilicaut. Here is a letter written by inspired 
men, for the express purpose of settling a difElculty 
-svhich had arisen in a church, about whether the 
Gentile converts must be circumcised, as the law di- 
rected concerning the Jew in the old dispensation, 
and yet nothing is said about baptism. The whole 
difficulty could have been disposed of by the sim- 
ple announcement that baptism had come in the 
room of circumcision, and therefore the latter was 
not to be practiced. If this Pedobaptist notion were 
true, verily here is a call for its statement. But 
these men, although acting under the guidance of 

* Acts XV. 23-29. 



124 PEDOBAPTISM : 

the Holy Spirit, said not one word about it, and, so 
far as we know, thought of no such thing. 

Another fact from Scripture,which antagonizes the 
idea of baptism taking the place of the Jewish rite, 
is: In the apostolic days, persons who had received 
the rite of circumcision, afterward, upon becoming 
disciples, were baptized also. It was so with those 
(the male part of them) whom John baptized. Even 
the Savior himself was circumcised and afterward 
Ijajptized by John."^ So also were the disciples he 
made and baptized, for he made his disciples from 
among the Jews. A large number of the devout 
men, converted on the day of Pentecost, had no 
doubt previously been circumcised, and yet when 
they ''had gladly received the word," they were 
baptizred. Paul was botli circumcised and baptized. f 
And what, if possible, is stranger still, if this the- 
ory be true, is, Paul circumcised TimothyJ; even 
after he had become a disciple, and therefore after 
Tie had heen laptized. How could baptism be ad- 
ministered in the place of circumcision, when the 
latter is still indiftercntly practiced? 

These facts are irreconcilable, with the supposi- 
tion that baptism has taken the place of circum- 
cision. 

But, further, the facts of Pedohaptism, as now 
practiced hy no means correspond with the facts of 
Jewish circumcision. Admitting, for argument 
sake, their theory to be true, then the lavj of cir- 

* Luke ii. 21. Matt. iii. 13. 
t Phil. iii. 5. Acts ix. 18. 
j Acts xvi. 3. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 125 

cumcision must decide who are to be baptized — of 
what age^ also of what sex the person shall be. This 
law is given in Genesis xvii. 

1. It requires, and such was the practice among 
the Jews, that only the males be circumcised. Not 
only males, but females also, are baptized. If 
baptism take the place of circumcision, then by 
that law it must be limited to male children and 
male adults. 

2. Circumcision, by positive law, w^as to be ad- 
ministered to only the male children, and that, too, 
on the eighth day after their birth. Do Pedobap- 
tists follow this rule? No; but contrariwise, they 
baptize (but by what law no one know^sj both male 
and female^ children at any age^ from birth up to 
thirteen years (the writer never heard of a person 
older than this, who w^as baptized upon the plea 
of infant (?) baptism). 

Let Pedobaptists know that they are to sprinkle 
their children on the eighth day after their birth — 
not sooner or later — and that they are to sprinkle 
only the 7nale and not the female portion. 

3. Circumcision, by positive law from God, ex- 
tended to all the male servants in the house of the 
Jew, even " those bought with their money.'' Do 
Pedobaptists follow this rule in their practice? 
Manifestly not. To be consistent with this theory, 
a master when converted and baptized, should im- 
mediately baptize, not only his male children, but 
also his ma2e servants^ without regard to age or 
character. Short of these he could not stop, beyond 



126 PEDOBAPTISM : 

them lie could not go, by the law of circumcision. 

Those born in his house must be baptized on the 
eighth day after birth, and those bought with his 
money he must also baptize, though threescore 
and ten years old, and that, too, by virtue of the 
master's baptism! 

4. Any one was allowed to perform the rite of 
circumcision, but Pedobaptists (most of them) re- 
quire that a regular ordained minister shall admin- 
ister the ordinance of Christian baptism, even to an 
infant. 

If there is a man in the United States who 
would develop and present in its full strength what- 
ever argument there might be in this theory, that 
man is Dr. jSTathan L. Rice, of the Presbyterian 
Church. He has spent his full strength on it, and 
has put it before the world in syllogistic form; and 
this has been repeated throughout the length and 
breadth of the land as the unanswerable argiLment 
for infant haptism. If it be swept away, the whole 
argument is gone that can be drawn from the the- 
ory of the covenants. The syllogism of the Doctor 
appeared in the Presbyterian Expositor ^'^ published 
in Chicago, and he thus expresses his own confi- 
dence in this master effort of his to defend the 
cause : 

''We will state the argument from the Abraliamic cove- 
Dant and we defy any one to admit the position without 



*■ Yol. TI. pp. 16, 17. This quotation was obtained from a min- 
ister of this State, who took it from the original work when first 
published. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 127 

admitting the doctrine of infant baptism as a logical neces- 
sitj." 

This argument will be stated in full; but, by the 
use of brackets^ will be inserted w^hat every one 
will recognize as scriptural facts. This can not 
be objected to, and the fallacy of the argument 
will be manifested at once by the insertion. 

^^1. The covenant with Abraham is the covenant of 
grace, therefore it did not belong to the Jewish dispensation 
and did not pass away with it, 

^' 2. The covenant confessedly embraced believers and 
their infant children \_(i. e.) male believers and their male 
children, infants, boys and men, together with all their 
servants, whether born in their house or bought with their 
money, infants, boys and men] and since it remains un- 
changed it embraces them still. 

^•3. AM who were in the covenant had a right to its seal, 
and those now embraced in it have the same right. And 
since professed believers and their infant children [_male 
children, infants, boys and men; male servants, infants, 
boys and men —Genesis xvii. 23-27] did receive the seal of 
the covenant by express command of God, the same char- 
acters [male believers and their male children, infants, boys 
and men; all the male servants and their m^le children, in- 
fant-, boys and men] must receive it still. 

^•4. As circumcision was the first sea', and wa- adminis- 
tered to processed believers and their infant children [(i. e) 
male believers and their infant children, male infants, boys 
and men ; with all the male servants, whether bought with 
money or born in their house, and their male children], so 
baptism is now the seal and must he administered to the 
SAME CHARACTERS [but certainly to no others, by the law 
of circumcision], 

''Here we might stop," continues the Doctor, (so he 
mights 'but we will give the argument in another form, 
thus : 

-'1. The xA.br ah amic covenant was and is the covenant of 
grace ; and the Church of God, as a people in covenant 
with him, was organized on this covenant. 



128 PEDOBAPTISM : 

''2. As the Churcli was organized on this covenant, it 
embraced in its membersliip all who were embraced in the 
covenant, viz : professed believers and their infant children 
[(^. 6,) male believers and their male children, infants, boys 
and men ; all the male servants, and their male children^ 
infants, boys and men — these constituted the membership 
and no others]. 

^' 3. The Christian Chnrch stands on the same covenant 
and is identical with the Abrahamic Church, and embraces 
THE SAME CHARACTERS in its membership, viz: profe&sed 
believers and their infant children [(^. e.) male believers 
and their male children, infants, boys and men, etc.]. 

''4. All embraced in the covenant and in the church- 
membership are entitled to the initiitory rite,* and since 
professed believers and their infant children [({. e.) male 
believers and their male children^ infants, boys and men ; 
all the m^ale servants and their male children also', infants, 
boys and men and no others certaiiili/] did receive circum- 
cision, the first initiatory rite, the same characters, [and 
NO OTHERS by, this law] being still embraced in the same 
covenant and in the same Church, have a right to baptism, 
which is now the initiatory rite." (The emphasis on the 
Doctor's words is mine.) 

"What do yoic think of this argument? Is it 
conclusive ? Granting the premises, which has 
been done for the sake of argument, and what is 
proved? Simply this, that male 'believers and their 
male cJiildren^ infants, boys and men ; and all the 
"^nale servants and their male children, infants, and 
boys and men, are all in the Church and are en- 
titled to baptism ! Do you accept the conclusion ? 
The difficulty with the argument is, the premises 
do not contain all the scripUiral facts on the sub- 
ject; and a false conclusion is therefore a "logical 
necessity." Supply these facts, as has been done, 
and the argument vanishes like dew before the 



IS IT FROM UEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 129 

morning sun. It is impossible to learn who are to 
be baptized, hy the law of cirGumcision ; and we 
are forced back to the New Testament. But there 
not one word is found about infant baptism; sim- 
ply that of believers or disciples is mentioned, and 
commanded, and practiced. Until Pedobaptists 
are willing to take the substitution theory in toto, 
they should remain silent in reference to it. If 
baptism comes in the room of circumcision, then 
it must be practiced aecording to the law of cir- 
immcision ; you must neither stop short of that 
law nor go heyond it ; but simply baptize such per- 
sons*, at such ages, as were circumcised — no more, 
no less. Where is the man who will do this? By 
what authority is one part accepted, another part 
dropped ofi', a third part added on, just as per- 
chance it may suit the fancy? Is not such havoc 
made of the word of God, a dangerous procedure? 
Did Christ command that baptism be adminis- 
tered to both male and female infants, and not to 
confine it to males, as circumcision was ? — that the 
time for baptizing is not limited* to the eighth day^ 
as circumcision was, etc., etc.? Where is* it re- 
corded ? No wonder Moses Stuart, to whom yoit 
should give audience on this subject, said: 

^^ Numberless difficidties present themselves in our way as 
soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this" — -infant 
baptism from infant eireumcision. 

Is it not a manifest Aveakness of the cause of in- 
fant baptism for its advocates to proceed in this 
way ; to abandon the JS'ew Testament and seek to 



130 PEDOBAPrisM : 

prove infants to be subjects of a New Testament 
ordinance hj inferences from the ceremonies of 
Judaism? 

Such a course is scarcely equaled by those Pedo- 
baptist ministers who have said, in defense of their 
practice, that inasmuch as all of Christ's sayings 
were not recorded, perhaps the mention of infant 
baptism was among his unwritten sayings. Per- 
haps it w^as ! ! Just j)rove it. It is better not to 
endeavor to be wise above what is written. But 
once more : If there he any analogy between the 
rite of circwinci'Sion and the ordinance of Chris- 
tian haptism^ that analogy is utterly subversive of 
the theory of infant lajptism. 

As the one was administered to the literal seed 
only^ so the other is administered only to the spir- 
itual seed of Abraham, that is, to believers. The 
facts in the case w^ill be briefly stated to justify 
this statement. The Abrahamic covenant had two 
phases or aspects ; the one a natural^ the otlier a 
spiritual. It had also three promises, viz : a nu- 
merous posterity; the land of Canaan as a heritage 
to them ; and God would be to him a God, and to 
his seed after him. Now each of these promises is 
applicable to, and fulfilled in, both the natural and 
the spiritual aspect of the covenant. 

1. The natural aspect. Here we have the nu- 
merous posterity in the hosts of Israel ; there was 
given to them the land of Canaan, flowing with 
milk and honey ; and to them, as Abraham's nat- 
ural seedy Abraham's God was their God. 



IS IT FHOM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 131 

2. The spiritual aspect. There is here also a 
numerous posterity. All believers in the Lord 
Jesus Christ are the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
Hence he is called '• the father of the faithful (^^ ^.), 
of the believing. '' Know ye therefore that they 
which are of faith [^. ^., believers], the same are 
the children of Abraham^ '' So then they which 
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
''A7id if ye he Chrisfs^ then are ye Abraham's seed^ 
and heirs ACCORDiNa to the promise."* ''There- 
fore it is of faith, that it might be by grace ; to the 
end the promise might he sure to all the seed ; not 
to that only which is of the law [the portion who 
are believing Jews], but to that also [the Gentile 
portion] which is of the faith of Abraham ; who is 
the father of us all [both Jew and Gentile believ- 
ers]."t " ITotas though the word of God hath taken 
none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of 
Israel : neither, because they are the seed of Abra- 
ham, are they all children : but, in Isaac shall thy 
seed be called. That is, They that are the children 
of the flesh, these are not the children of God : hut 
the children of the proraise are counted for the 
seedJ^l Who, then, are the spiritual seed of Abra- 
ham ? Manifestly all who are Christ's ; who are 
believers in him : " Even us, whom he hath called, 
not of the Jev^s onl}^ but also of the Gentiles; ^'% 
these are the spiritual seed, the children according 
to promise. And what a numerous posterity, a 



* Gal. iii. 7, 9, 29. t Bom. iv. 16. } Eom. ix. 6-8. 
g Kom. ix. 24. 



132 PEDOBAPTISM : 

progeny more numerous than the stars of heaven, 
or the sand upon the seashore, as God promised 
Abraham they should be. And also to this spirit- 
ical seed is promised a Canaan. ^' They seek a bet- 
ter country, that is an heavenly." Heaven is the 
promised Canaan to the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
We are travelers and sojourners here in this world, 
but '^ heaven is our home '' — a land not to be com- 
pared with the heritage of natural Israel. 

*' There everlasting spring abides, 
And never fading flowers ; 
Death, like a narrow stream, divides 
That heavenly land from ours. 

*' Sweet fields, beyond the swelling flood, 
' Stand dressed in living green; 

So to the Jews fiir (^anaan stood, 

While Jordan rol ed between." 

^'For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole fam- 
ily in heaven and earth is named.'^ 

^''One family we dwell in him ; 
One Church above, beneath ; 
Though now divided by the stream, 
The narrow stream of death. 

"0/ie Army of the living God, 
To his command we bow ; 
Part of the host have crossed the flood, 
And part are crossing now. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 133 

And surely in a pre-eminent degree the God of 
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, is the God of 
Abraham's spiritual seed after him. "One God 
over all, blessed forevermore.'* 

The above is but a brief statement of achiiowl- 
edged facts, and now their application to the sub- 
ject in hand is simple and easy. 

If baptism has come in the place of circumcis- 
ion, which applied to Abraham's natural seed as a 
national mark, then analogy demands that baptism 
be confined to his natural seed, and therefore only 
Jews would be entitled to the ordinance. 

But the natural aspect has all passed away, and 
now the spiritual alone remains. And if baptism 
comes in the room of circumcision, to whom, ac- 
cording to analogy, must it be administered? Most 
certainly to all of Abraham's spiritual seed^ and 
to them exclusively. And these are no others than 
those who are Christ's, (^^ e,) believers in him; 
these are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs, 
according to the promise. [N'othing avails now 
but " faith that worketh by love." '' AVe are all 
the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." By 
this analogy baptism must he administered to 
Abraham's natural seed or to his spiritual seed. 
"Which will you take ? The former ? Then you can 
baptize Jews only, and if you persist in baptizing 
infants too, you must confine your work to Jevnsh 
infants, as his natural seed. Do you say the ordi- 
nance is confined to his spiritual seed — whether 
Jew or Gentile? Then it is most unquestionably 



134 PEDOBAPTISM : 

limited to believers or disciples, for no others are 
his spiritual seed. In either case, therefore, the 
baptism of, at least, Gentile children is out of the 
question. And so even by this none but believers 
are entitled to or are the subjects of Christian bap- 
tism. This is the conclusion reached from every 
starting point. Por this reason Dr. Hodge, that 
giant among Pedobaptists, wrote as follows :* 

" When Christ came the commonwealth was aboHslied, 
and there was nothing put in its place. The Church re- 
mained ^ ^ ^ a spiritual sorActy^Nii)! spiritual promises^ 
on the condition o^ faith in Christ. In no part of the New 
Testament is any other condition of membership in the 
Church presented, than that contained in the answer of 
Philip to the eunuch, who desired baptism : ' If thou be- 
lievest with all thy heart, thou majest. And he answered 
and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of Uod.' The 
Church, therefore, is in its essential nature a company of 
believers^ and not an external society, requiring merely ex- 
ternal profession as condition of membership." 

Rev. Edward De Pressense, a learned Pedobap- 
tist, of Paris, France, also says :f 

^' Eegarded from the apostolic point of view, baptism can 
not be connected either with circumcision, or with the bap- 
tism administered to proselytes to Judaism. Between it 
and circumcision there is all the difference which exists be- 
tween the theocracy to which admission was by birth, and 
the Church which is entered only by conversion,''^ 

Therefore it is concluded that 

^' Whatever of rational analogy may be traced between cir- 
cumcision and baptism must inure to the opponents of in- 

^" Quoted in Curtis' Prog. Baptist Prin. p. 92, from Princeton 
Review, Oct., 1853, pp. 684, 685. 

t Ford's Christian Kepository, Yol. XII. p. 493. 



IS IT FUOM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 135 

fant baptism. How plain this is! Abraham's natural seed 
were circumcise J. >j^ >!< >!< Christians are Abraham's 
spiritual seed. They become so by faith in Christ. ^ ^ ^ 
It was proper to circumqise Abraham's natural seed, it is 
proper to baptize his s-nritual seed. But who are his 
spiritual seed? Believers in Christ and believers alone. 
Infants have no right therefore to baptism, because they 
are not Abraham's spiritual seed. Jewish infants were fit 
subjects for circumcision, bjcause they were Abraham's 
natural seed. But neither Jewish nor Gentile infants can be 
spiritual seed, because of their incapacity to exercise faith, 
and they ought not therefore to he baptized. I insist, then, 
that correct analogical reasoning from circumcision to bap- 
tism saps the very foundation of Pedobaptism."^ 

Hence Moses Stuart, as previously quoted, says : 

'' How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contend- 
ing for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy 
of circumcision. Are females not proper subjects of b.ip- 
tism ? And again, are a man's slaves to be all baptized be- 
cause he is ? Are they church -members of course when 
they are so baptized ? Is there no diiference between en- 
grafting into 2i politico ecclesiastical GormnuTat J and into one 
of which it is said that ' it is not of this world ? ' In short, 
numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as 
soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this." 

^^The covenant of circumcision furnishes no grounds for 
infant baptism '^ 

And so the Baptists of all ages have said over and 
over again. 



* Pendleton's "Three Keasons," p. 56. 



CHAPTER IX 



Much has already been learned, and much more 
is yet to be learned from Church history. And it 
opens to the student, on many accounts, a most in- 
viting field. All of its teachings, however, are to 
be tried most impartially at the bar of Holy Writ 
— man's only infallible teacher. Concerning what, 
by divine authority, is binding on man. Church his- 
tory can teach us nothing, except what is much 
more plainly taught — and taught with authority 
too — in the New Testament. Especially is this true 
touching the ordinances. And with that inspired 
volume in his hand, therefore, the man, who is ut- 
terly ignorant of Church history, can know his 
whole cluty^ to himself, to his fellow man, and to 
his God. For '' all Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re- 
proof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- 
ness : That the man of God may he perfect^ thor- 
oughly furnished unto all good worhsP^ And 
without that precious volume — precious to all the 
saints, and lovers of the "truth as it is in Jesus^' 
— we are like the mariner, at sea, in a midnight 
storm, without chart or compass, " tossed to and 

«- 2 Timothy iii. 16, 17. 

. (136) 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 137 

fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine/' 
Left to the mercy of merciless winds and a sea as 
unmerciful, our condition is most pitiable. Oli, 
who can tell the- importance of clinging to the N^ern 
Testament as the only compass and chart, that will 
guide us safely over the sea of uninspired history^ 
beclouded by errors and superstitions of the wild- 
est nature ! 

And it is altogether proper at this juncture of 
the investigation, to remind the reader of a fact 
already learned, viz: 

"The historian of infant baptism can gather no materi- 
als for his subject from the New Testament. The rite has 
the sanction ot* neither precept nor example in the writings 
of the Evangelists and Apostles. The gloom and the si- 
lence of the grave brood over it." 

Church history reveals no one fact more plainly 
than the following : That at a very early period — 
in the centuries immediately after the apostles — the 
Church, the doctrines of grace, and the ordinances 
of Christ, were all perverted to a marvelous degree. 

And yet amid these superstitious perversions, 
we are to look for the rise of the doctrine of infant 
baptism. 

Here it had its birth ; here it was cradled ; and 
here it grew^to manhood. There is an argument (?) 
used by Pedobaptists called the "historical argu- 
ment for infant baptism." And yet, even they — 

^^ The advocates of infant baptism — find great difficulty in 
fixing upon the period of its commencement. It is a mat- 
ter on which great diversity of sentiments exists. They 
agree only in affirrningj that the point of time when the 



138 PEDOBAPTISM : 

foundations of tliis system were laid, is to be found some- 
where in the long lapse of ages intervening between the 
call of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, and the third 
century of the Christian era, when certain Africans were 
laboring to engraft upon the institutions of the New Test- 
ament the wildest vagaries of superstition/^ 

They can agree that " baptism is an ordinance of 
the ITew Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ," but 
are unable to say when and where infant baptism 
had its rise. And on this very fact (the ignorance 
of the time of its origin) as a foundation, (so hard 
pressed is their cause) they endeavor to build an 
argument in its favor! Baseless fabric, indeed! 
Well, as the exact time of its origin may not be 
certainly known, the next question is, When is the 
haptism of it f ants first mentioned in history ? 
Certainly, no one can object if Pedobaptists, who 
have sought most diligently through all the records 
of the past, to find something in support of their 
cause, be allowed to answer this question. The 
friends of the rite will surely do their best for it. 

The six witnesses first introduced are taken from 
the "Baptist Short MethodP"^ Keep the question 
before you, and hear the testimony of these Pedo- 
baptists. 

When is infant baptism first mentioned ? Give 
us the result of your examinations of the annals of 
history. '^ •• 

Hahn says: 

^' Neither in the Scriptures^ nor during the first hundred 
and fifty years^ is a sure example of infant baptism to be 
found. ' 



'^- Pp. 90-95. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 139 

Luther says : 

" It can not be proved by the Sacred Scriptures, that in- 
fant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first 
Christians after the apostles." 

Curcellaeus says : 

^' The baptism of iofants in the tijoo first centuries after 
Christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth 
centuries was al owed by some few." 

Hyppolytus, Bishop of Pontus, writing in the 
first half of the third century^ says : 

^^ We in our days never defended the baptism of children, 
which in our day had only begun to be practiced in some 
regions." 

Bunsen, the learned translator of Hyppolytus, 
says infant baptism, in the modern sense, 

^^ Was utterly unknown to the early Churchy not only down 
to the end of the second century, but indeed to the middle 
of the third century, ^^ 

Salmasius says : 

*' In the TWO FIRST centuries no one was baptized, except 
being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doc- 
trines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer. ^^ 

Neander has written large volumes on Church 
history; and yet this famous Pedobaptist Church 
historian, after a most careful study and investiga- 
tion of the whole matter, deliberately testifies as 
follows* (is it a falsehood ?) : 

" Baptism was administered at first onlyjbo adults, as men 
were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly 
connected. We have all reason [he learned this, in part 

^' Curtis' Prog. Bap.ist Prin., p. 103. 



140 PEDOBAPTISM : 

no doubt, from his investigations of history — in seeing where 
the rite had its rise] for not deriving infant baptism from 
apostolic institution." He also says:^ 

'' It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism 
[and yet he ordained the ordinance of Christian baptism.]"f 

Mosheim says : J 

"The sacrament of baptism was administered in this (the 
first) century, without the public assemblies, in places ap- 
pointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed 
by an immersion of the whole body in water in the baptis- 
mal font At first it was usual for all who labored in the 
propagation of the Gospel, to be present at that solemn 
ceremony ; and it was also customary, that the converts should 

'•• nice and Campbell Debate, 395. 

t While this work was in press the followinoj quotation appeared 
in the editorial column of The Religious Herald (Richmond, Va.), 
October 28, 1875. And it is here appended to strengthen and to give 
more at length the testimony of this distinguished man, who, per- 
haps, has no superior as a Church historian : 

" Could any man have found scriptural authority for infant bap- 
tism, Neander would have found it. He was a clergyman of the 
Lutheran Church, in which the rite was practiced. He was a prince 
among ecclesiastical historians and biblical critics. With all his 
research and perspicacity, he found no trace of the ceremony in 
the Scriptures. For convenience, we quote from Benedict's His- 
tory of the Donatists, pp. 130, 131. 

"* Baptism, says he, 'was administered at first only to adults, as 
men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly con- 
nected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptii^m from 
apostolical institution, and the recognition of it which followed 
somewhat later as an apostolical tradition serves to confirm this 
hypothesis. In the last years of the second century, TertuUian 
appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof that the 
practice had not yet come to be regarded as an apostolical institu- 
tion ; for, otherwise, he would hardly have ventured to express him- 
self so strongly against it. But if the necessity of infant baptism 
was acknowledged in theory, it was still far from being uniformly 
recognized in practice. As the church in Korth Africa was the 
first to bring prominently to notice the necessity of infant baptism, 
so, in connection with this, they also introduced the communion of 
infants. Church History, Vol. I. pp. 311, 812. Boston Ed.'" 

X Hist. Maclaine's Translation, pp. 25, 28, 49. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 141 

he baptized and received into the cliurcli hy those under ivliose 
'ininistry tlicy had emhraced the Christian doctrine " For 
"then" lie tells us, -'Baptism was administered to none 
but such as had been previously instructed in the principal 
points of Christianity, and had also given satisfactory proofs 
of pious dispositions and upright intentions." 

And of the second century he says : 

^' The persons that were to be baptized, after they had 
repeated the Creed, confessed and renounced their siiis, and 
particularly the devil and his pompous allurements^ were im- 
mersed under water, and received into Christ's kingdom by 
a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ac- 
cording to the express command of our Blessed Lord." 

Many more might be introduced, who would 
bear testimony as strongly against infant baptism 
as the foregoing. But only one more, a Metho- 
dist, will be called to testify " when infant bap- 
tism was first mentioned in history/' 

Rev. A. T. Bledsoe, LL.D., assisted by all the 
light and learning of the nineteenth century, in 
giving the history of this rite, says :^ 

•^ Before the time of Tertullian, (A. D. 200) the practice 
of infant baptism is nowhere distinctly mentioned by any 
writer of the Church. Those who maintain that it was in- 
stituted by the Apostles, and handed down, not by any 
written word, but only by oral tradition, have discovered 
traces of this practice, as they imagine, in the writings of 
Justin Martyr, and of Irengeu^." 

The Doctor then shows the groundlessness of 
any such claim and reiterates : 

/' Tertullian is the first writer in the Church who makes any 
express mention of the custom of infant baptism. Before his 
time, A. D. 200, there is not an allusion to the custom from 

•^' Southern Review for April, 1874, pp. 336-339. 



142 PEDOBAPTISM : 

which its existence may he fairly inferred. It is frequently 
urged, that the practice of infant baptism must have been 
an apostolic institution, because it prevailed, and became 
universal, without the least opposition from any source 
whatever. But, however strange it may seem, the fact is, 
that the first father, or writer [Tertullian in the beginning 
of the third century] by whom the practice is noticed, con- 
demns it as having no foundation either in reason or revela- 
tion." 

Then, if the testimony of Pedobaptists can be 
relied upon, with a good degree of certainty, it 
may be stated that the first mention ever made of 
infant baptism, was made about the beginning of 
the third century^ by Tertullian, who condemned 
it. (And it may be added that history points 
strongly to Africa as the place of its origin, under 
the jurisdiction of Cyprian, one of the African pas- 
tors.) It was mentioned by no one before Tertul- 
lian in the third century. Some of the advocates 
of the practice talk a good deal about certain earlier 
writers, of Justin Martyr, of Hermas, of Irenaeus, 
and of Polycarp, who, they tell us, was a disciple 
of John, etc. But if any of these persons any- 
where mentioned the practice of baptizing infants, 
the place has never been found by its most zeal- 
ous friends. These names are passed over, by the 
more masterly writers on the subject, such as Dr. 
Samuel Miller, Dr. Bledsoe, and others, who almost 
sneer at those who attempt to refer to them as the 
advocates for the practice. Beyond Tertullian of 
the third century none of them can go. It is more 
than two hundred years after Christ before infant 
baptism is ever mentioned ! It is not easy to stretch 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 143 

the imagination Over two hundred years. Our na- 
tion is nearly one hundred years old — just prepar- 
ing to celebrate her one hundredth anniversary. 
How many great events have taken place in that 
time — commencing with that grand struggle in the 
Revolutionary War for independence, and coming 
to the present day! All that done inside of one 
hundred years. But it was twice that long — two 
Jiundred years — after Christ before infant baptism 
was ever mentioned. '^ Was it from heaven or of 
men?" Just tMnh of it, The first Tiundr eel years 
of the Christian era — the most important century 
in the world's history — ha.s pa.sseel^ and there is not 
a trace of infant baptism to be found. During this 
century, Christ came into the world; constituted 
his Church; offered himself upon the cross as the 
sacrifice for sin ; appointed in his Church the two 
ordinances — baptism and the Lord's Supper; gave 
his commission to the disciples, which was to gov- 
ern them and regulate all their labors to the end 
of the world ; and the disciples, in obedience to 
that commission, given by their now ascended 
Lord, go into every nation ; preach the gospel and 
by it make disciples; and then baptize them into 
the name of the Trinity; gathering these baptized 
disciples together, they organize them into churches, 
and teach them to observe all the commandments 
of Christ. The twelve chosen apostles of our Lord, 
though some of them lived to a ripe old age, have 
all died and passed away. The Book of Revelation, 
(he last of the inspired volume, is fiinished and 



144 PEDOBAPTISM : 

sealed. And God speaks no more to man except 
through that finished volume. It contains the 
whole of his will. The one hundred years in which 
all this is done — the century from which all other 
centuries date — passes away and yet not one word 
is said ahoitt the haptism of infants. The rite is 
not mentioned once in all that time. That is a lit- 
tle singular, to say the least, if it be of divine ap- 
pointment. Were it of heaven, it must have heen 
mentioned in that century. 

But further, another hundred years — the second 
century of the Christian era — is numbered with the 
past. And yet nothing is said of infant baptism — 
not once^ through all those years, those centuries^ 
is it mentioned. And this, too, according to the 
testimony of Pedobaptists themselves. True, in 
this (the second) century, marked as it was by ig- 
norance, superstitions, and corruptions, the seed of 
error is sown, which will germinate, and in years 
yet to come will bring forth the dogma of infant 
baptism. This long -continued silence is one of the 
loudest and strongest arguments used by Pedobap- 
tists! What a sublime silence of over two hun- 
dred years' duration ! Who can not hear and under- 
stand its awful voice ! But the third century dawns 
— if dawning it is, for the dark clouds of ignorance 
are becoming a deeper black — and the silence is 
broken. The voice of Tertullian is heard. He is 
condemning one of the wild superstitions of be- 
nighted Africa, viz: the admitting of unintelligent 
infants to the ordinance of Christian baptism, '' as 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 145 

having no foundation either in reason or revela- 
tion," Counting from the ministry of our Savior, 
nearly six gen(?Tations of people have come into 
the world and gone out again, and yet, as the advo- 
cates of the practice tell us, '' there is not an allu- 
sion to the custom from which its existence may 
be fairly inferred." Not one of all thai vast multi- 
tude, of five generations and over, thoui^jh by some 
of these Christ and his apostles were heard, ever 
heard the mention of this rite. Not one word is to 
be found in Scripture or early Church history about 
infant baptism, ^j the testimony of its friends, 
infant baptism is not mentioned (and therefore not 
ordained) by Christ; nor by a single one of his 
apostles ; nor by any one who ever saw an apostle; 
nor by an^^ one who ever saw any one, who had 
seen an apostle! And yet it is of divine appoint- 
ment ! ! ! Wko ca7i ielieve it ? Do you ? And do 
you wonder that Baptists do not, and that they 
have always fought against it? The New Testa- 
ment teaches that it is not from heaven; and the 
first, and inevitable inference is, that it is of men. 
And this inference is confirmed by Church history. 
Pedobaptism is nearly two hundred years younger 
than the ordinance of Christian baptism. The lat- 
ter was ordained by Christ, but of the former he 
said not one word; the latter was practiced by the 
apostles, but of the former there is not a single 
trace to be found in all their writings or practice. 
If infant baptism must be practiced simply be- 
cause it was practiced sixteen centuries ago, why 
not. do now as was the custom then, viz: immerse 



146 PEDOBAPTISM : 

the infant ? It was then practiced for the remis- 
sion of sins ; for what it is practiced now, it is very 
difficult to say. The antiquity of the rite proves 
not one thing in its favor. An argument from an- 
tiquity, to have any weight with Baptists, vjith any 
lover of truths must penetrate the gloom and the 
superstition of the past ages, and extend back into 
the days of Christ and his apostles, and must be 
stamped with the unequivocal authority of the 
New Testament. Such is clearly not the case with 
infant baptism. Talk not to us, therefore, of the 
great antiquity of the rite. It is indeed very 
ancient^ but it lacks just two hundred years, or 
more, of being old enougli, for its antiquity to 
amount to anything. And yet Dr. N. L. Rice says :* 

^'It seems to me impossible that iofant baptism could 
have originated so eaily^ and have become so universal in 
the Church J unless it is of divine appointment/' 

Is it possible, that i>r. liioe did not see the fal- 
lacy of this argument? Who would dare affirm 
that whatever commenced early — even earlier than 
infant baptism— and prevailed in the Church (of 
Rome) must therefore be of divine appointment? 
Will you do it? This must be done before the ar- 
gument can avail. And then you must receive and 
practice as of divine appointment, I 

^' Many absurd superstitions of the early corrupted Church; 
such as the worship of images ; the invocation of saints ; 
prayers to the Virgin ; oblations for the dead ; consecration 
of the baptismal waters ; and many others ; not a few of 
which came into use about the time of this ; and some of 

- Ford's Chris. Kepos. Yol. XII. p. 408. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 147 

which are even older. Not what is old but what is iruc^ 
should be our rule ; not what antiquity^ but what the Bible 
teaches, should we obey." 

Bnsil was right in saying: 

'^ It is a manifest mistake in regard to faith, and a clear 
evidence of pride, either to reject any of those things 
which the Scripture contains or to introduce anything that 
is not written in the sacred pages." 

Not tradition^ but '-Hhe Bible alone is the relig- 
ion of Protestants." 

By tliis principle Baptists are willing to stand. 

'^ There are three great principles which Baptists hold, 
and which they have ever held, with unyielding tenacity, in 
every period ot* their history. 

" First. The all-sufpigi'ency and exclusive author- 
ity OF THE Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice. 

'-'■ Se-ond. The consequent denial of the right of legisla- 
tures and ecclesiastical conventions to impose any rites, 
ceremonies, ob:^ervances or interpretations of the Word of 
God upon our belief and practice. 

" Third. The unlimited and unalienable right of every man 
to expound the Word of God for himself, and to worship 
God according to the dictates of his own conscience — being 
responsirde in these matters to him only who is King in 
ZioQ."^:< 

Tliese principles have made the Baptists, through 
all (lie ages, a distinct and a peculiar people. And 
for these, thousands of Baptists have been num- 
bered with the martyrs of Jesus. These principles 
have prevented the Baptists from raising their arm 
against any other people under heaven. For hold- 
ing to these principles it has been written of them: 

'^ The Baptists are one of the few religious denominations 

*" Dr. Samuel Baker. 



148 PEDOBAPTISM : 

that have never persecuted. We can not say that they 
have been personally too good, seeing that some of them 
have shown great bitterness toward other religionists, and 
even toward their own brethren who differed from them ; 
but their immemorial principle of opposition to all union of 
Church and State has always made it impossible that they 
should persecute. In so doing they would at once cease to 
be Baptists." (Dr. John H. Broadus.) 

No martyr-blood has ever stained the garments 
of the Baptists. 

The first of these principles was emphasized, both 
because the others are founded upon it, and also 
because of its special appositeness here, as show- 
ing how Baptists have ever been satisfied with, and 
would allow no other than, the testimony of the 
Scriptures on any doctrine or practice. They care 
not for tradition, or uncertain history, but they 
pledge themselves to stand ly the Bihle and the 
Bible alone. 

^^ Can any one tell us," asks Dr. Rice, " in what age in- 
fant baptism commenced? " (Baptism, Ch. 5) 

He asserts not. 

" Can any one tell us," asks the Roman Bishop of Stras- 
burg, '• when the dogma of the real presence in the sacri- 
fice of the mass commenced?" (Letters to the Anglican 
Clergy.) 

He asserts no one can. In what respect does the 
argument of the Presbyterian Doctor difl'er from 
the argument of the Roman Bishop ? 

" Even if prelacy (and why not infant baptism ?) were 
found unequivocally represented as existing by the fathers 
in fifty years after the last apostle^ yet, says the great Pres- 
byterian Professor, Dr. Miller, of Princeton, 'If it be not 
found in the Bible, as it assuredly is not, such testimony 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 149 

would by no means establish its apostolic appointment. It 
would only prove that the Church was very early corrupted.' " 

What Dr. Miller says about prelacy is exactly 
what Baptists, with precisely the same authority, 
say about infant baptism. Nothing but a divine \ 
sanction of this rite will be satisfactory to them. ^ 

*'Can any one tell us when infant baptism commenced? '^ 
asks Dr. Rice ? 

" Can any one tell us," asks Dr. Samuel Miller, (in 
Christian Ministry) ''when the administering of communion 
to infants was first introduced ? By whom ? Whether it 
met with any opposition ^ ^ ri^ ? I will venture to 
say no one can."^ 

" 'Augustine,' says Dr. Knapp, ' calls infant baptism 
apostolica traditio ; and we should, unquestionably, attach 
some importance to this testimony, if he had not also called 
infant communion apostolica traditio;^ we know he was 
mistaken in this case. Why not then in the other? "f 

The fallacy of the so-called historical argument 
is certainly manifest to all. Among the very ear- 
liest corruptions and superstitions was the perver- 
sion of the plan of salvation. And the result was 
the dogma of baptismal regeneration — or baptism 
essential to salvation. 

And from this sprung the dogma of infant bap- 
tism. Bad parentage, surely ! 

When the Council of Carthage, which was com- 
posed of sixty-six Bishops, or Pastors, and over 
which Cyprian presided, decided in A. D. 253, that 
the baptism of an infant must not be delayed till 

* In Ford's Christian Eepos. Yol. XII. p. 407. 
t Bledsoe in Southern Hevievj, April, 1874, p. 344. 



150 PEDOBAPTISM : 

the eighth day, the following reason was assigned: 
^'As far as in us Hes, no soul, if possible, is to be lost."^ 

And Dr. Wall referring to the ''Ancient Fathers" 
says: ''They differ concerning the future state of 
the infant dying unbaptized; but all agreed they 
missed of heaven." 

Salmasius also says:f 

"An opinion prevailed that no one could be saved with- 
out being baptized ; and for that reason the custom arose 
of baptizing infants." 

Infant baptism is easily traced to the dogma of 
baptismal regeneration. And ever since the one 
gave birth to the other, the two dogmas have been 
as closely allied as mother and child. And as the 
dogma of infant baptism was born of the other; so 
has it ever received from that, as a child from its 
mother, nourishment by which it has grown. As 
Dr. Bledsoe says: [The Review for July, 1874, p. 148.) 

" The history of infant baptism is, in a very great meas- 
ure, the history of baptismal regeneration itself. An edi- 
tion of Shakespeare's ' Hamlet,' with the part of Hamlet 
omitted, w^ould not be a more ridiculous production than a 
history of infant baptism without the introduction of bap- 
tism J regeneration. 

As always so now also, 

^' There is certainly a logical connection between the doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneratioo and the practice of admin- 
istering the saving rite to infants, and even to children yet 
unborn." (Hovey.) 

When saving efficacy had been attributed to bap- 

- See Pendleton's " Three Keasons," pp. 68, 73. 
t Baptist Short Method, p. 98. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 151 

tism, then through a desire to save the infant from 
perdition, the next step would naturally be, to ad- 
mit the unconscious infant to the ordinance that 
its soul might not be lost. Error begets error. One 
l)erversion almost always leads to another. 

"It is notorious," says Dr. Hodge,^ "that the Jewish 
doctrines of the merit of works, of the necessity and saving 
efficacy of external rites ; of a visible kingdom of Christ of 
splendor and worldly grandeur ; of an external Church out 
of whose pale there is no salvation ; of the priestly charac- 
ter of the ministry ; and of a Church hierarchy, soon began 
to spread among Christians, and at last became ascendant 
[all which, it may be remarked in passing, was the result of 
the " Church identity theory'']". 

And among other corruptions stood that of in- 
fant baptism. Thus stands the rite in the light of 
history. Here, as in the New Testament Pedobap- 
tism is seen to be of men, springing up with other 
corruptions, among the wild superstitions of Africa, 
about the beginning of the third century. 

" This century," says Dr, Bledsoe. f "suffered, as we learn 
from historians of the Church, from a decay of learning 
and the increase of superstition ; fro'm the decline of true 
piety and the growth of priestly arrogance; from an ob- 
scuration of divine truth and the invendons of human tra- 
dition. In this age, accordingly, the Church reaped a new 
harvest of errors, the germs of which had been previously 
planted." 

Who would be surprised that such an age, reap- 
ing such a harvest of errors, sliould also reap with 
the rest, the dogma of Pedobaptism, the germ of 
which had previously been planted? 

- Syst. Theol. Yol. III. 738. 

t Southern Review^ April, 1874, p. 348. 



152 PED0BAPTIS3I : 

Olshausen, after denying that the Scriptures af- 
ford any proof-text for infant baptism, thus covers 
his retreat:* 

*^ Still, however, the propriety of infant baptism is un- 
doubted, and the condition of the Church after the close of 
the third century imperatively required its introduction^ 

The Doctor seems to think it was introduced a 
little later than the time mentioned by some of his 
Pedobaptist brethren. That the Church (?) needed 
something to purge it of its vices and corruptions, 
no one will deny. But Pedobaptism did not do 
this. It was simply the introduction of another, 
and a terrible evil, nor did it come alone. What 
Dr. Bledsoe says of '^infant damnation" may be 
said with equal truth of infant baptism, for they 
are twin sisters, viz: 

'^ This dogma did not as we may be sure, first show its 
hideous head amid the advancing lights of learning, religion, 
and morality On the contrary, it did, in fact, first appear 
amid the gathering shadows of ignorance, superstition, and 
corruption in morals, by which the third century was dis- 
tinguished from the preceding eras of the Church. "I 

Such is the much-boasted argument from Church 
history in favor of infant baptism ! Let those, who 
see fit, practice it because of the weight of the 
liistorical evidence (f). 

But Baptists in rejecting it, stand with De Pres- 
sense, of Paris, one of the most learned, as well as 
one of the most evangelical Pedobaptists of Europe, 
lie says:| 

. ^ Oomm. Acts xvi. 14, 15. 
t Southern Review^ April, 1874, p. 348. 
X Ford's Christian Eepository, Vol. XII., p. 493. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 153 

*^ This is the great reason [viz : the close connection be- 
tween faith and baptism] why we can not believe that it 
[Christian baptism] was administered in the apostolic age 
to little children. No positive fact sanctioning the prac- 
tice can be adduced from the New Testament; fhehisforical 
proofs alleged are in no icaij conclusive.^' He also says, (as 
quoted by Dr. Hovey"^) '-The practice of baptizing the 
newly born was early introduced into the church, though 
it does not reach back, in our belief, to the apostolic age. 

Such being the admitted facts, how can an intel- 
ligent, God-fearing man sprinkle a little water in 
the face of an unconscious infant, and that too in 
the sacred name of the Trinity, of the Father, of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and call that act 
Christian baptism? Was there ever a greater mis- 
nomer? The question, ^' Who hath required this at 
your hands?" ought to startle the Pedobaptist 
world. 



* Baptist Quarterly, Yol. IX., p. 138. 



CHAPTER X 



The question that has stood before the reader 
through all these pages, has been answered, Pedo- 
haptism is of men. And this work may now be 
closed. Before doing so, however, it is germane to 
this question, after the preceding examination of 
the subject, to state, that against the dogma of in- 
fant baptism, quite a number of very serious 
charges can be preferred and sustained. And it is 
in every sense, pertinent to ask : Is it reasonable 
to suppose that any practice, even liable to such 
charges^ can be of divine appointment? "When 
you have read the charges, then answer as in the 
sight of God. 

Charge 1st. The reader of these pages will read- 
ily anticipate the first charge, viz : Pedobaptism is 

UNSUPPORTED BY THE TEACHINGS OF THE NeW TESTA- 
MENT. This is certainh^ a most serious charge ; and 
until relieved from it, the advocates of infant bap- 
tism should not ask an intelligent person to believe 
the doctrine to be from heaven. That the charge 
is true will not be doubted by the unbiased reader 
either of the New Testament, of Church history, 
or of the baptismal controversy. 

If the rite were of divine appointment, one would 

(154) 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 155 

naturally expect to find it taught in and supported 
by the J^ew Testament. For the wliole laio^ by 
which the followers of Christ are to be governed 
in observing his ordinances, is contained in that 
book. If you ask, who were to be circumcised ; 
or who admitted to the feast of the passover — or 
to any of the Jewish rites; at once you would be 
referred to the 6^Z(:Z Testament, for all of these are 
Old Testament ordinances. And there, the law is 
recorded that regulated them. If you ask, by what 
authority baptism and the Supper are administered ; 
and to whom they are to be given — for the whole 
law regulating these two ordinances, you are re- 
ferred at once, not to the Old^ but to the Wew Test- 
ament. Because hoth of these are New Testament 
ordinances, ordained by Jesus Christ. And all of 
Ms will concerning them is written in that book. 
Do you desire to know Chrisfs will, then you must 
go to Christ's laic^ recorded exclusively^ but fully, 
in the jSTew Testament. llTow if it was his xoill^ 
that the unintelligent babe should be admitted to 
baptism and the Supper — the only two ordinances 
given to his followers — would he not have so com- 
manded? And where but in the New Testament 
would that command be recorded? Or if Christ 
had designed that the infants should not partake 
of the Supper, as they did of the Jewish passover, 
but that they must be admitted to the ordinance of 
baptism, would he not have so specified, and not 
left his disciples in the dark concerning these ordi- 
nances ? And is there any other book to which 
appeal may be made to learn Christh will^ except 



156 PEDOBAPTISM I 

the New Testament ? Or will any otlier hooTc tell 
you, with infallible correctness, what Christ has 
commanded concerning his ordinances? If he had 
appointed infant baptism, as he did that of believ- 
ers, ought it not to be — loould it not have heen — 
taught in the New Testament^ the whole of Christ's 
revealed willy just as believer's baptism is taught 
there ? 

And is it not true, therefore, that if infant bap- 
tism is of divine appointment, it must he supported 
hy the New Testament ? Upon every question con- 
cerning the two ordinances instituted by the Lord 
Jesus Christ, we are necessarily shut up to the au- 
thority of that one book — -that book of inspiration, 
the last will and testament of our dying Lord. 

Here and here alone can a man know the com- 
mandments of Christ. And here every man, de- 
siring to know them, can do so. They are written 
so plainly that he that runs may read. And now 
is it not a very bad omen, a grievous charge, against 
the practice— -that infant haptism is not supported 
hy the teachings of that hook — the hooh that con- 
tains all of ChrisVs commands concerning his or- 
dinances f 

That this charge is true is proved by what has 
already been written. But this much additional 
evidence will be given, and then let him doubt it 
who can. 

(1.) If it is the duty of the followers of Christy 
to have their children haptized^ then it is a duty^ 
which they could never learn from the most care- 
ful reading of the New Testament. This can not 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 157 

be denied, for there is " not one word in favor of 
infant baptism" in all its pages. 

Would yoic suppose that our Redeemer, as well 
as our Master, would impose upon his disciples a 
duty, and hold them responsible for its perform- 
ance, although he left not one written law concern- 
ing the matter? How is the parent to know that 
it is a duty? Must only the male child, or children 
of both sexes, be baptized ? Are they to be bap- 
tized at birth, or on the eighth day thereafter, or at 
what age? Mliere is the laic on this matter? 
What has Christ commanded concerning it? It 
can never "be known from the New Testament, 

A converted man, rejoicing in the hope of the 
glory of God, would learn from that hooh^ that he 
must be baptized ; must unite himself to the people 
of Gotl ; must partake of the Lord's Supper ; must 
endeavor to bring others to Christ; would in fact 
learn every duty imposed upon him by the Lord 
Jesus Christ. But he would never learn from its 
teachings that he must have his children baptized, 
for there is not such an intimation from the begin- 
ning to the end of the book. There can be no ob- 
ligation, unless there be something upon which it 
may rest, and on account of which it is obligatory. 
It is obligatory upon believers to be baptized, ^6>Z<??y 
because Christ has so commanded. But why is it 
obligatory upon a parent to have the child baptized? 
Christ never commanded it. There is not one 
word about it in the New Testament. The parent 
will never learn from reading that look^ though it 
contains his whole duty to himself, to his family, 



158 PEDOBAPTISM : 

and to Christ, that it has been imposed upon him 
to baptize his infant. Why is it a duty? "Why is 
it obligatory upon Christ's disciples and not on 
other people ? The Pedobaptist world may answer. 
The late Rev. JS". M. Crawford, who during his life- 
time was President of more than one college, was 
raised a Presbyterian. He was united in marriage 
vrith a Baptist lady. When his first child was born, 
he desired, according to the creed of his Church, to 
have him baptized. But being, as he always was, 
controlled simply by principle, he determined not 
to ask his wife to sacrifice her principles, until he 
could show her a command from Christ, mahing 
it ohligatory upon him to have the child sprinkled. 
A noble resolve indeed, and one worthy of all imi- 
tation ! Telling her nothing of his feeling, he took 
his English Testament and read it through care- 
fully, and then reread it. Not a little surprised at 
his failure to find there the command, and being a 
good Greek scholar, he turned to his Greek Testa- 
ment, and gave that a most diligent perusal. But 
failed utterly to find a single trace of infant bap- 
tism. The simple question with him was — Has 
Christ required me to have my child baptized ? To 
this he found no response in the New Testament — 
Christ's written law — given for our guidance. Any 
one knowing Dr. Crawford could easily tell what 
the result w^ould be. He determined, like an hon- 
est man, to abandon the practice, and also the 
Church that taught it, although the Church of his 
fathers ; and Yorj much to the surprise as well as 
to the joy of his wife, he announced to her one 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 159 

Sabbath morning his purpose, to unite, on that 
very day, with the Baptist Church. No doubt 
there are many, who, hke this great and good man, 
suppose it obligatory upon them to " consecrate 
their children to the Lord in this way;'^ and who 
like him also, up to that time, have never examined 
the ground of its obligation. What would be the 
result on Pedobaptism, if parents would not ofler 
their children for baptism, until they had presented 
to them a command from Christ requiring it at 
their hands? By the authority of the New Testa- 
ment, a man may preach the Gospel to every crea- 
ture; baptize them that believe; administer the 
Lord's Supper to baptized believers; but never can 
he sprinkle an infant by the authority of that in- 
spired volume. 

(2.) Appeal is also made in sitstainingtliis cJia^rge^ 
to your own personal reading of the New Testa- 
ment. 

You hnow^ as well as any one, that in all that 
book there is not one word about infant baptism. 
Of course it is presumed you have read the book, 
or you would not be talking about what it contains. 
And your testimony must sustain the charge. If 
you refer to the fact of Christ's blessing little chil- 
dren; to the commission ; or to the household bap- 
tisms, or to any of those texts sometimes quoted 
in favor of the practice ; you must then be asked 
to reread what has been written in the preceding 
pages on those passages. If you refer to the ''iden- 
tity of the churches," and to ''baptism in the room 
of circumcision" — then you must be reminded that 



160 pedobAptism: 

those very argumentSj considered strong pillars to 
the cause of infant baptism, have crumbled and 
fallen before the simple statement of facts that 
none could dispute. And besides the charge is, 
that it is unsupported by the Ni^w Testament. 

Can you name the book, the chapter and the 
verse, in that portion of God's "Word, where infant 
baptism is even mentioned, to say nothing of Gom- 
manded^ and made binding on Christ's disciples ? 
If you can, then stand up boldly for your cause. 
And if you can not, then most earnestly are you 
entreated, for the sake of truth, to abandon it, 
whatever be the consequences, as Crawford, and 
Campbell, and Judson, and other honored men 
have done. 

(3.) But a^ppeal is further made to the conduct 
of the advocates of (he dogma^ in mahing their 
defense. 

Do they defend their cause as if it was supported 
by the New Testament? No. They will not risk 
their cause upon this inspired volume — the very 
one, and the only one to which appeal can be made 
and that can give any authority on the subject. Is 
there a Pedobaptist who is willing to have his 
cause tested by the light of the New Testament^ 
and will pledge himself to abide the decision of 
that hooh? They tell us truly that baptism is an 
ordinance of the New Testament^ but not one of 
tliem^ by the most learned and diligent search, has 
ever found the slightest mention or allusion even, 
to infant baptism. Ask them to give their author- 
ity for the practice ; and forthwith, abandoning the 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 161 

NeiD Testament^ they flee to tlie ^Mdentity of the 
cliurches," and the Jewish rite of circumcision — to 
tlie Okl Testament — to learn who are the subjects 
of this ordinance of the New Testament ! Is not 
this a singular procedure? AVhy not point out 
the place — you can certainly do so if it is there — 
where Christ commanded the baptism of infants, 
or the apostles practiced it? And then there will 
be no need of curiously wrought arguments (?). 
Those who rely upon the ceremonies of Judaism 
for the support of their cause, are not a little 
troubled and embarrassed by meeting such men, of 
their ow^n number, as Strarck, who says \^ 

''The connection of infant baptism with circumcision de- 
serves no consideration, since there were physical reasons 
ior circumcising in infancy " 

And as Bishop Jeremy Taylor who says: 

''For the argument from circumcision, it is invalid from 
infinite considerations. Figures and types prove nothing, 
unless a command go along with them, or some expression 
to signify such to be their purpose." 

And many others who speak equally as strong and 
decided. 

Others abandoning the New Testament^ seek 
refuge among the wild absurdities, and uncertain 
superstitions of Church history. When Dr. Wood, 
of Andover, was quoted as saying : 

" It is a plain case that there is no express precept re- 
specting infant baptism in our Sacred Writings. The proof 
tJien^ that it is a divine institution must he made out in some 
other loay^ " 

* Howell's Evils of Infant Baptism, p. 21. 



162 PEDOBAPTISM : 

the reader was left in amazing wonder no doubt, 
as to what the ''some other way^^ would be, by 
which an institution would be proved to be divine, 
after the luJiole Bible had been abandoned. "Well, 
you may have the words of Dr. Wood himself. 
He says :^ 

" It can not with any good reason, be denied, or doubted, 
that those Christian writers, who have, in different ways, 
given testimony of the prevalence of infant baptism in the 
early ages of ChriUianity^ are credible witnesses. Nor can 
it be denied that they were under the best advantages to 
know whether the practice commenced in the times of the 
apostles. On this subject, as they were not liable to mis- 
take J so their testimony is entitled to full credit.'^ 

This will only provoke a smile from those who 
read the chapter preceding this one, and remember 
that these same "-Christian loriterSj'' who ''were not 
liable to mistcclce^^ (/) also called infant commitnion 
an " ctioostolica tradition But Dr. Wood, a pro- 
fessor of theology, is satisfied with their testimony 
— although by it many of the grossest mummeries 
of Rome pould be proved to be divine institutions 
— and thinks it svffucient to support his cause, when 
the Neio Testament^ in fact the lohole of " our 
Sacrecl Writings^^' have utterly failed him, and af- 
ford no proof for the dogma. 

Others again, such as ''Wall, Hammond, and 
others of that school, claim that Jewish Proselyte 
baptism^ is its broad and ample foundation/' But 
Moses Stuart, ''Owens, Jennings, and others, re- 
pudiate Jewish Proselyte baptism," and deny that 



'•'- Howell's Evili of Infant Baptism, p. 26. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 163 

such a thing was known prior to the days of John 
the Baptist. It is very plain that we micst look not 
to Judaism, not to Jewish Proselyte baptism (even 
if there was such a thing), not to Church history, 
(which is extremely uncertain), hut to the New 
Testament exclusively, to know who are the sub- 
jects of Christian baptism, for it is '^a is'evv Testament 
ordinance." And yet the advocates of infant bap- 
tism admit willingly the silence of this book con- 
cerning the rite. Why talk of the ^'identity of the 
churches," of " circumcision replaced by baptism," 
'^Jewish Proselyte baptism," or of ''Church history," 
as the main stay and support of infant baptism, 
were it not that the dogma is wholly unsupported 
hy the New Testament ? ''By their fruit ye shall 
know them." Their actions betray their cause and 
sustain the charge made against it. By their own 
words they stand condemned. 

(4) But^ in sustaining this charge preferred 
against Pedohaptism^ viz : that it is unsupported 
hy the New Ttstamcnt — appeal is made, finally^ 
to the testimony of Pedohap list schoUirs and critics. 

In addition to that already given, ^ the following 
will now be presented. John Calvin testifies : 

"It is nowhere expressly mentioned hy the evangelists ^ that 
any child was by the apostles baptized." 

Keander also testifies :f 

"As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance 



* See Chapters IV. and YI. ei al of this work, 
t Both Calvin and Neander are quoted from Howell's Evil of 
Infant Baptism, p. 21. 



164 PEDOBAPTTSM : 

on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always 
connected ivith one another ; and thus it is in the highest 
degree probable that baptism was performed only in instances 
where both could meet together^ and that the practice of in- 
fant baptism vms unknown " to the apostolic age. 

By this time the reader is familiar with the name 
of Dr. Bledsoe. Ilis testimony is valuable, because 
of his standing as an able Methodist divine; be- 
cause it is of recent date ; and because his Review 
is published now under the auspices of the M. E. 
Church, South, having received a fresh indorsement 
from the last General Conference of that Church, 
held in Louisville, May 1874.^ After conceding 

^' With all our searching, we have been unable to find in 
the New Testament, a single express declaration, or word 
in favor of infant baptism; " and declaring that "- Hundreds 
of learned Fedobaptists have come to the same conclusion ; 
especially since the New Testament has been subject to a 
closer, a more conscientious, and more candid exegesis, than 
was formerly practiced;" 

Dr. Bledsoe cited in corroboration of his state- 
ment, the following distinguished advocates of the 
practice :f 

*• In Knapp's Theology, for example it is said : ^ There is 
no decisive example for this practice in the New Testament ; 
for it maybe objected against those passages where the bap- 
tism of whole families is mentioned, viz.: Acts x. 42-48 ; 
xvi. 15-33 ; 1 Corinthians i. 16 — that it is doubtful whether 
there were any children in those families, and if they^were, 
whether they were then baptized. From the passage, 
Matthew xxviii. 19, it does not necessarily follow that, 
Christ commanded infant baptism (the matheteuine is neither 

■''■ The month after he published his sweeping concession. This 
is significant. 

t Southern Review^ April, 1874, pp. 334 335. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 165 

for or against) ; nor does tliis follow any more from John 
iii 5, and Mark x. 14-16. There is tlierefore no express 
command for infant baptism in the Neiv Testament^ ?i^ JMorus 
(p 215) justly concedes.' (Vol. II. p. 524). Dr. Jacobi 
says : ' However reasonably we may be convinced that we 
find in the Christian Scriptures ^' the fundamental idea 
from which infant baptism was afterward developed, ' and 
by which it may now be justified, it ought to be distinctly 
acknowledged that it is not an apostolic ordinance.' (p. 
271).' 

To this Dr. Bledsoe adds the testimony of jSTean- 
der, and then assures his reader of the abundance 
of such testimony in the following strong terms : 

^' We might, if necessary, adduce the admission of many 
other profoundly learned Fedohaptists^ that their doctrine is 
not found in the NE VY TEST AMEN f, either in express 

TERMSj-OR BY IMPLICATION FROM ANY PORTION OF ITS LAN- 
GUAGE." (Emphasis mine.) 

Very good testimony this, to sustain the charge 
preferred ! But this is not all. When by some of 
his Methodist brethren. Dr. Bledsoe was called to 
an account for these sweeping concessions, in the 
very next issue of his Bevitw^ he responded as 
follows : 

" Mr. Miller is unduly alarmed at our hcnest admission 
that there is no express command [his admission was 
stronger than that] for infant baptism in the New Testa- 
ment. He seems to think, indeed, that this admission 
ruins the cause of iofaijt baptism If so, then it was 
ruined by Watson^ and Wesley^ and Knapp and JacoVi^ long 
before we ever alluded to the subject. Nor is this all; for 
almost all writers in favor of infant hapdsm have made pre- 
cisely the same admission. ^^ 

It is no marvel that Mr. Miller, should, before 



For July, p. 177. 



166 pedobaptism: 

8uch concessions, tremble for liis cause ! But as Mr. 
Miller can not help the matter, he only relieves 
himself by saying of Dr. B/s position :* 

'' The absurd and self-annihilating and contradictory atti- 
tude of a man who deliberately administers a rite in the 
name of Jesus Christ, for which Christ never uttered one 
word, renders that opioion [viz : that the baptism of young 
children is to be retained in the Church, although there is 
not one word in the New Testament in its favor] in this 
case, simply nugatory." 

That is true. But it is the condition of the 
whole Pedobaptist world. In two things they 
agree, viz : That baptism is a New Testament ordi- 
nance, ordained by Jesus Christ; and that Christ 
and his apostles — the icritings of the Neio Testa- 
ment — are silent about infant baptism. They " are 
constrained to confess that infants and haptisni are 
distinct words, and nowhere joined together in the 
New Testament. God has put them asunder." And 
what God hath put asunder let no man join to- 
gether. 

Has not the charge — Ptclohaptism is unsitpported 
hy tJie Neio Testament — been amply sustained, even 
by the testimony of its friends ? The New Testa- 
ment teaches us our whole duty, but says nothing 
in favor of infant baptism. Dear reader, are you 
willing to practice, or to sustain by your words, 
or b}^ your membership even to countenance what 
is not sustained by the l^ew Testament? Will 
you sanction what neither your Master nor his 
apostles sanctioned? "Will you thus venture to 

* Quoted in Review for July, 1874, p. 173. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 167 

trifle with the Word of God? Eead what he says 
and take warning. " What thing soever / com- 
mand you, observe to do it. Thou slialt not add 
thereto^ nor diminish from it/' It is a fearful tiling 
to tamper with the word of the Lord. Has he com- 
manded infants to be baptized? If so, it must be 
done. If not, who will dare to do it, in his name ? 

This one charge sustained, is sufficient to con- 
demn the cause. 

A few others, however, will be — must be hriefly 
— given. But until Pedobaptists can relieve their 
cause of this one^ they should hold their peace — 
imitate the silence of the New Testament — ''' the 
supreme standard by which all human conduct, 
creeds and opinions sliould be tried.'' 

Charge 2d. Pedobaftism contravenes the com- 
mand OF Christ to baptize believers. 

The constant and the inevitable tendency of in- 
fant baptism is to do away with believer^s baptism. 
That this latter is of divine appointment is univer- 
sally admitted. Can any one believe that Christ is 
the author of two ordinances, between which 
there is an inevitable and irreconcilable antagon- 
ism? Would he appoint tw^o ordinances, any more 
than he would create two systems of worlds, that 
would always antagonize, each the other? Verily 
not. There is perfect harmony in all of his works 
and appointments. Let Pedobaptism prevail uni- 
versally, and in a short time believer's baptism 
would be a thing of the past. But for the faith- 
fulness of Baptists in ages past, there would be no 
buch thi!ig as bcliever^s hiiptism to-d;iy. Between 



168 PEDOBAPTISM : 

the two there is a positive and a direct conflict. 
One of them therefore can not be of divine appoint- 
ment — unless God be made the author of confu- 
sion. If this human rite should prevail, then be- 
liever's baptism, an ordinance established and 
perpetuated by Christ to be observed ^'always, even 
^o the end of the world," would be abolished. 
There would be no Gospel baptism on earth ; but 
only a human rite, meaningless in the extreme. 
When any system, or ordinance, in any way, con- 
travenes the teachings of the New Testament, or 
its ordinances, either in design, or action, or sub- 
ject; that sj^stem or ordinance, whatever else it 
may have in its favor, must be stamped as false, as 
not of divine appointment. Such is the case with 
this rite. Ever since it was first introduced into 
the world, about the beginning of the third cen- 
tury, it has run counter to the commands of God 
as recorded in the New Testament, contravening 
and vitiating the ordinances of Christ, as well as 
his Church, and '^ the faith once delivered to the 
saints.-' It can not, therefore, be of divine ap- 
pointment. Pedobaptism is '^ a human tradition 
arraying itself in deadly hostility to an ordinance 
of heaven, and attempting with all the energy of 
desperation, to destroy it and leave no memorial of 
its existence on the face of the globe." To pre- 
serve the ordinances of Christ in their purity ought 
to be the faithful endeavor of all his followers. 

God desires tliat his people — in fact lie claims 
only those as his people who — ^'waUi in his stat- 
utes, and kcij) his ordinances and do them.'' And 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN? 169 

the inspired man of God wrote to his brethren at 
Corinth : *' Now I praise you, brethren, that ye re- 
member me in all things^ and Jcetp the ordinances^ 
as I delivered them unto you/' The Savior has 
commanded to baptize believers — this is his ordi- 
nance, believer's baptism. Infant baptism has 
been introduced by men iw opposition to this. Our 
Eedeemer presses his disciples with the stirring 
words, ''If ye love me, keep my commandments." 
Let all who love Jihn and desire t<? oley hiiii^ say 
whether Pedohaptism shall not rather be abol- 
ished. Blessed Master, give us grace to do, in all 
things, as thou hast commanded I 

Charge Zh, Pj^dobaptism has bee;^ the cause of a 
vast deal of the fiercest persecution, that has 

EVER BEEN WAGED AGAINST THE FOLLOWERS OF JeSUS. 

The Baptists, who are of such power in this land, 
numbering now largely over one and one-half miU 
lion of members, with their numerous Schools, and 
Seminaries, and Colleges, are a most ancient peo- 
ple. Antedating the rise of the various Protest- 
ant denominations, which took place either at the 
same time with, or since, the great Reformation of 
the sixteenth centurv, the Baptists have never beqn 
traced to their origin, except as they have been 
traced back to the days of the apostles. And then, 
the historian must depend almost solely upon the 
testimony given by their enemies. By the follow- 
ing quotations their antiquity is made manifest. 

Dr. Mosheim, a learned Pedoboptist historian, in 
his history of the Anabaptists (p. 490-1.) says:* 

* Quoted in Ford's Origin of tlie Baptists, pp. 52, 53, 



170 PEDOBAPTISM : 

*^ The true origin of that sect which acquired the denom- 
ination of Anabaptists^ by the r administering anew the rite 
of baptism to those Avho came over to their communion, and 
derive that of Mennonites, from that famous man to whom 
they owe much of their present felicity^ is hidden in the 
depths of antiquity, and is of consequence dij9&cult to be as- 
certained. This uncertainty Avill not appear surprising 
when it is considered that this sect [Anabaptists or Bap 
tists] started up suddenly in several countries at the same 
point of time^ under leaders of diffei:ent talents and differ- 
ent intentions, and at the very period when the first coq- 
tests of the Reformers with the Roman PontiiFs drew the 
attention of the world^ and employed all the pens of the 
learned in such a manner as to render all other objects and 
incidents almost matters of indifference/^ [The Anabap- 
tists] ''not only considered themselves descendants of the 
Waldenses, who were so grievously oppressed and perse- 
cuted by the despotic heads of the Romish Church but pre- 
tend, moreover, to be the purest offspring of the respectable 
sufferers^ being equally opposed to all principles of rebel- 
lion on the one hand, and all suggestions of fanatacisms on 
the other." ^' It may be observed," continues this enemy 
of the Baptists, ''that they are not entirely in an error 
when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Pet- 
robanssianSj and other ancient sects^ who rre usually con- 
sidered as witnesses of the truth in times of general dark- 
ness and superstition. Before the rise of Lnth r and Cflvin, 
there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe^ 
particularly in Bohemia, Moravia^ Switzerlnd, and Ger- 
3uany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doc- 
trine, etc., which is the true source of all the peculiarities 
which are to be found in the religious doctrine and disci- 
pline of the Anabaptists." 

In 1819, the King of Holland appointed Dr. 
Ypeij, professor of theology in the University at 
Groningen, and Rev. J. J. Dermont, chaplain to the 
king, both of them learned Pedobaptists of the 
Dutch Keformed Church, to prepare a history of 
their Church. In their history, they devote one 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 171 

cliaptor to the Baptists, in which they make the 
following statement concerning them:^ 

" We have now seen that the Baptists who were formerly 
called Anabaptists, and, in latter times, Mennonites, were 
the original \\'aldenses; and who have long, in the history 
of the Church, received the honor of that origin. On this 
account^ THE Baptists may be considered as the only 
Christian community which has stood since the days 
OF the apostles, and as a Christian society, which 
has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel 
THROUGH all AGES. The perfectly correct external and 
internal economy of the Baptist denomination, tends to con- 
firm the truth, disputed by the Bomish Church, that the 
Eeformation brought about in the sixteenth century, was in 
the highest degree necessary; and at the same time goes to 
refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their com- 
munion is the most ancient." 

Dr. Brown well says : 

^^ This testimony, from the highest official authority in 
the Dutch Beformed Church, is certainly a rare instance of 
liberality towards another denomination." 

And pretty good testimony is this to the apos- 
tolic origin of the Baptists, especially as it comes 
from men who are not Baptists but are faithful and 
competent historians. 

Alexander Campbell says :f 

"Clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that he/ore the Ref- 
ormation from Popery^ and from the apostolic age to the 
present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of 
baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and pub- 
lic monuments of their existence in every century can be 
produced." 

But the history of this ancient people, whose 



* Encv. Eelig. Knowledge. Art. Mennonites, p. 796. 
t Debate with Maccalla, p. 378. 



172 PED0BAPTI8M : 

"origin is hidden in the depths of antiquity," has 
never been written. The Baptists have an unwrit- 
ten history — one that perhaps can not be written 
except in the light of eternity. 

Their history faithfully and fully written, would 
be a history, to a large degree, of the suffering, of 
the persecutions, and of the cruel deaths, which 
have been inflicted upon the followers of Jesus, be- 
cause of their fidelity to him and their steadfast- 
ness in *' the faith once delivered to the saints." In 
all the ages Baptists have suffered persecutions by 
fires, imprisonment, torture by the inquisition, 
scourging, and martyrdom — they "had trials of 
cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of 
bonds and imprisonment : they were stoned, they 
were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with 
the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and 
and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 
of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered 
in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves 
of the earth." How true it has been of them, that 
they who would live godly in this world must suf- 
fer persecution! And though they have never 
once persecuted, yet they have suffered persecution 
at the hands of nearly every other denomination! 
And for nothing have these ancient people suffered 
more than for their firm adherence to believer's 
baptism on the one hand, and for their constant 
and persistent opposition to infant baptism on the 
other. Since its introduction into the world Bap- 
tists have ever raised their voices against the 
human invention. Often when they have been 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 173 

burned, or put to the rack, or persecuted in many- 
ways, the whole of their offense has been their op- 
position to infant baptism. 

The time has been when if a minister wrote or 
spoke against the rite, he did it knowing that he 
must suffer — when, if such a bool^ as this was 
written, the writer must pay for the deed by burn- 
ing at the stake. 

Trace them through all their persecution and you 
will find that the secondary if not the prime cause 
of their persecution was their opposition to infant 
baptism. To prove this by the production of facts 
is not necessary. Its truthfulness is too well and 
too sadly known to every reader of Church history. 
Says Mr. Motley* of the Council of Troubles, called 
also the Bloody Council, over which the Duke of 
Alva presided in the Netherlands : 

^'So well did this new and terrible engine perform its 
work, that in less than three months from the time of its 
erection, eighteen hundred human beings (or twenty a day) 
had suffered death by its summary proceedings; some of 
the liighestj the noblest, and the most virtuous in the land 
among the number ; nor had it then manifested the slightest 
indication of faltering in its dread career.^' 

''Upon the 16th of February, 1563, a sentence of the 
Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Nether- 
lands to death as heretics. From this universal doom, ojili/ 
a few persons, specially named, were excepted. A procla- 
mation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this de- 
cree, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, 
without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably 
the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed. Three 
]i5lLLi0NS OF PEOPLE, men, loomen and children, loere sen-- 
tenced to the scaffold IN three LINES." 

» Hovey's Tract on Evils of Infant Baptism, p. 47. 



174 PEDOBAPTISM : 

And this for heresy. (See Dr. Hovey-s tract.) 
The massacre of St. Bartholomew need not be 
mentioned, which occurred in France, August 24, 
1572, and lasted thirty days; during which time 
thirty thousand persons were put to death (one 
THOUSAND PEK DAY !) The climax is terrible. Thus 
they suffered by "confiscation, banishment, the 
dungeon, the rack, for a clear conscience and a 
IDure life ! In [Virginia and] New England, in Old 
England, in and throughout Europe ! with now 
and then a Duke of Alva or a St. Bartholomew 
massacre ! " 

What a record against Pedobaptism ! Behold ! 
oh, ye, who defend the dogma, what it has produced 
to the followers of Jesus ! This is the fruit of your 
most favored tree! "It will never be known till 
the revelations of the last day, what multitudes 
have been put to death for denjang the right of the 
unconscious infants to the ordinance of baptism. 
O Babylon ! drunken with the blood of the saints 
and the martyrs of Jesus, a fearful doom awaits 
thee ! During the dark ages the spirit that 
prompted Augustine and his coadjutors to anathe- 
matize the opposers of infant baptism, prevailed, 
and became intensely rancorous. Could the mar- 
tyred Paulicians, Waldenses, and Albigenses rise 
from the dead, they would tell a tale that would 
send a thrill of horror through the heart of human- 
ity.-' But let the curtain fall; and hide this dark 
picture from sight. Let Pedobaptists turn away 
and cover themselves in sackcloth and in ashes!! 

Charge 4th. Pedobaptism is utterly subversive 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OP MEN ? 175 

OF THE PURITY AND THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE ChuRCH 

OF Christ, 

A regenerated membership is the motto, and 
the only safeguard of the spiritual character of 
Christ's Church, 

Nothing can fit an individual for membership in 
a Churcli of Clirist, except regeneration. Let this 
be absent and nothing else will suffice. And surely 
if we have any concern for its purity, and for apos- 
tolic example, nothing less can be demanded as a 
prerequisite to church-membership, and admittance 
to the ordinances of the Lord*s house, than a pro- 
fession of faith in Christy which always implies or 
presupposes a previous birth of the Spirit For, 
^^ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
born of God."* 

The man who renders acceptable obedience to 
Christ, in keeping his commandments, is the man 
who loves Christ. "He that hath my command- 
ments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me."f 
And yet ^' every one that loveth is born of God, 
and knoweth God/'J; And no one can enjoy the 
worship, the spiritual service of the sanctuary, ex- 
cept he have the birth from on high — or regenera- 
tion wrought by the Holy Spirit. How emphatic 
are the words of the Savior, ''Verily, verily, I say 
unto thee, except a man be born again [^. e., from 
alove'^ 'born, not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'j, he can 
not see the kingdom of God.'"§ " Marvel not that 

* 1 John V, 1. t John xiv. 21. % 1 Jolm iy. 7, 
I John iii. 3 and L 13, 



176 PEDOBAPnsM : 

I said unto thee, ye must he horn from ahove.^^ The 
apostolic churches grew rapidly. But their increase 
were additions made by the Lord. '^The Lord 
added to the Church daily, those who are aaved.'^^^ 
Paul planted and Apollos watered, " but God gave 
the increase,''] The Lord has always been the 
builder of his spiritual temple and he puts in no 
material but that which is spiritual—or which is 
born of the Spirit, for only "that which is born of 
the Spirit is spirit," or spiritual. 

Hence the peculiar terms in which the apostolic 
churches were addressed in the Epistles. And such 
is the description also of those churches by inspired 
men. "And such [i, ^., as he had described above; 
persons of the most degraded character; now, be- 
fore you were the subject of New Birth, such] were 
some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanc- 
tified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God/'J 

*^Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual 
house, a holy priesthood, to oifer up spiritual sac 
rifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ * ^ ^ 
Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a 
holy nation, a peculiar people ; that ye should show 
forth the praises of him who hath called you out of 
darkness into his marvelous light,''§ Such is the 
inspired description of the oharaoter and of the 
design of Chrises Church. But how utterly inap- 
propriate and averse is every word in this descrip- 
tion to Pedobaptism — a system '' which justifies the 

* Acts ii. 47. t 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7. J 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11, 
§ 1 Peter ii. 5, 9, 10, 11. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 177 

deliberate introduction of unbelievers into the 
family of believers, the deliberate placing of other 
than living stones' in the building of God.'' Read 
again the apostolic declarations of the nciaterial of 
which the Church is composed. Could such things 
be said of Pedobaptist churches into which are 
received unregenerated infants, unregenerated 
seekers, and unregenerated penitents ? Can such 
persons be designated as "lively stones," or a 
"spiritual house," etc.? Can they*' offer up spir- 
itual sacrifices?" Can they ''show forth the 
praises of God?" Have they been "called out of 
darkness into his marvelous light?" While by 
divine appointment Christ's Church, like Solomon's 
temple, is to be built of material prepared and 
made ready before it is brought hither, and thus be 
preserved in its purity, yet, if infant baptism was 
the rule, many who are unregenerated, many who 
are the most immoral and the basest members of 
society, would be introduced into the Church. Such 
a course would obliterate, entirely and forever, 
every trace of the line of demarkation between 
the world and the Church. They would he one. 
The unregenerated part would soon have the as- 
cendency, and then what would become of the 
purity and the spirituality of the churches? There 
would be either no Church, or no world, or a Church 
most intensely worldly in its nature. 

Pedobaptism, even with its present strictures 
and opposition, has greatly marred the beauty of 
Zion. Infant baptism and a regenerated church- 
membership are as irreconcilable as light and 



178 PEDOBAPTISM ! 

darkness. The latter is our only safeguard. Admit 
the former, and you make a gap in the wall through 
which the Church will he deluged with such cor- 
ruption and vice, superstition and perversion of 
the truth, as characterized the ^'dark ages." Chris- 
tianity has never known a more hlighting or a 
more corrupting curse than the adulterous union 
of Church and State. And of this Pedohaptisni is 
the foundation-stone ; and is justly chargeable with 
all the evils and miseries which have been entailed 
upon the Church, and upon humanity, by such an 
adulterous union. The^e have been most numer- 
ous and most terrible, and some of them most dia- 
bolical. By Pedobaptism the Church of Christ is 
shorn of its chiefest a*lorv; and the riirht arm of 
its power is broken! 

CuARGE 5tu. By it, thk child is robbed of its priv- 

ILEGE AND HINDERED IN ITS DUTY OF RENDERING PER- 
SONAL OBEDIENCE TO THE SaVIOR, AND, THKREFORE, OF 
HAVING THE ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD 
GoD IN BAPTISM. 

It is sometimes said, when all other arguments 
have failed to satisfy the conscience: *'lf the bap- 
tism of infants does no good, it certainly will do no 
harm.'' But this is not the question. Did Christ 
command vou to baptize children, or to have vour ; 
child baptized? It so, then by all means do it. 
But where has he given the command? Not in the 
New Testament surely. // is a shi to do anything 
in the name of Christ, about which Christ never 
uttered one word. And besides, the statement is 
by no means true. For it does harm — and a great 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 179 

harm at that — to admit infants to the ordinance of 
Christian baptism. It does harm to the Church, to 
the minister, to the teachings of the Bible, to the 
parents of the child, and especially to the child 
itself. It works mischief all around. 

Though Christ commanded all believers to be 
baptized, yet that child, having grown up, and be- 
lieved on Christ, lives — must, by the work and 
vows of the parent, live — in open disobedience to 
his Savior's command. Is this a small matter? It 
is worse than nonsense to talk of the child, on 
coming to riper years, adopting the act of the 
parent as its own individual act. The child Knew 
nothing of it. And never can the act be so re- 
ceived by the child, as to become the child's oioi 
personal ohedlencc in the sight of God. Religion 
is strictly a personal mattir. Each one has to do 
with God for himself. Every one must repent for 
himself; must believe for himself; must love, and 
must render ^)^/\<?();u?7 obedience for himself, as well 
as give an account unto God for himself. This last 
would not be true, if the former things were not 
true also. They are inseparably linked together. 
A person is responsible, and will be called to give 
account, only for his conduct in respect to j\rsonal 
duties^ which God has imposed upon him, or re- 
quired at his hands. All of the above mentioned 
things God has required of eac/i individual for 
himself, they are j)trsonal duties; and therefore, 
'^even/ one of us shall 2:ive account of Jilmsilf to 
God."* But those baptized in infancy can never 



* Kom. 5iv. 12. 



180 PEDOBAPTISM : 

render a personal ohedience to Christ in baptism. 
As they have lived, so they must die, and go to 
judgment without having obeyed the command — 
the last, parting command — given by their Savior 
just before he ascended to the throne of his glory. 
Is all this no harm? Nor can they ever enjoy the 
approval of a good conscience toward God. Their 
conscience will never be satisfied that its demands 
have be6n met, unless peradventure, it be as badly 
perverted as was the conscience of Saul of Tarsus, 
who verily thought he did God service in persecut- 
ing the Church of Christ. 

Oh, parents, will you not be entreated in behalf 
of your children ? 

Will you still continue to impose upon them, in 
the solemn name of the Triune God, an ordinance 
meaningless in all its parts, and without any sanc- 
tion whatever in the Word of God ? Is it not a 
fearful and a dangerous procedure ? 

Are you willing to rob your children of the bless- 
edness of having their conscience satisfied, and 
bear them witness in the Holy Spirit that they 
have rendered unto God all liis requirements ? Are 
you willing to deprive your children of the highest 
joy known to a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ 
while on earth, viz: the joy found in keeping the 
commandments of him who loved us and gave him- 
self for us? All this you do, and more besides, 
every time you have one of your children sprinkled. 

And if any, baptized in infancy, should read these 
pages, will you suffer one personal question to be 
put to you — and it is asked in all tenderness and 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 181 

kindness of heart. ICou must admit, that, whatever 
your parents did for you, yet you have not obeyed 
Christ for yourself. Are yozc willing to meet your 
Redeemer in heaven — in death and at the judg- 
ment — after slighting and neglecting, for a whole 
lifetime, the last commandmeni he left on record 
for you, viz: be baptized? 

Charge 6th. Pedobaptism is founded in principles, 
which strikk at the very foundation of the great 
and fundamental doctrines of the scheme of re- 
demption. 

'^A fundamental misconception of the truth of 
the Gospel, gave it birth, while misapprehension of 
the teachings of the New Testament prolongs its 
disastrous existence.-' 

The doctrine of universal depravity; the great 
fundamental doctrine of justification by faith; the 
doctrine of the agency of the Hol}^ Spirit in regen- 
eration; the Scripture doctrine of infant salvation; 
the true principle of civil and religious liberty; the 
union of believers for which Christ prayed; the 
Scriptural design, and the wonderful significance of 
Christian baptism; all of these, and others that 
could be mentioned of the great doctrines of the 
economy of grace, are either contradicted, antago- 
nized, falsified, perverted, or wholly overthrown by 
the dogma of infant baptism. To elaborate this 
charge to its fullest extent would require a volume. 
This then can not be done here. The charge has 
been'made, that Baptists have caused and prolonged 
the divisions among Christians. But from the very 
nature of things this can not be true. They offer 



182 PEDOBAPTISM : 

a broader and a more ample and just basis of Chris- 
tian union than any other denomination. Nearly 
every article of their faith — especially those on the 
subjects about which the7*e are divisions— is believed 
by nearly all the Protestant denominations. They 
accept our Creed, but desire to make additions it is, 
just as they do to the New Testament. 

What is accepted and held by all can never cause 
division. None of their articles of faith, therefore^ 
are schismatical. Baptists believe that the immer- 
sion in water of a proper subject in the name of 
the Trinity is Christian baptism. But this article 
of faith does not belong exclusively to them. It is 
accepted and considered baptism by all Christen- 
dom. To hold to immersion as baptism can never 
therefore cause division. But to the point in hand. 

Baptists hold that a leliever in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, is a Scriptural and therefore a fit subject 
for Christian baptism. And no one denies it, who 
believes in water baptism at all. It is universally 
accepted as true, as sanctioned or authorized in the 
Word of God. Believer's haptism — like immersion 
— passes everywhere. 

There can be no divisions, therefore, on account 
of this doctrine. Why then are Christ's followers 
divided? Not for anything held by Baptists touch- 
ing this doctrine; but here is the entering and the 
dividing wedge — " and their children.'^'' And who 
made this wedge ? And who inserts it and drives 
it until the people of God are rent asunder? Is it 
the work of Baptists, or of Pedobaptists? The 
answer is easy. There is just as much in tlie Creed 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 183 

af every Baptist Church, ^'in favor of infant bap- 
tism,'- as there is in the Word of God, ^. 6.," not oiie 
ivorclp " not a single trace," etc. It is the dogma of 

- Pedobaptism that divides the followers of Christ. 

; Again : It is opposed to the work of the Uoly 
Spirit. The Eev. Wm. Bates, Lecturer of Christ's 
College, Cambridge, in '^ College Lectures on Chris- 
tian Antiquities and the Kituals," p. 399, propounds 
the following question and answer :* 

^' Why must parents and friends be careful to get their 
children baptized?" Because by this ordinance their orig- 
inal sin is washed away and they are grafted into the 
body of Christ." 

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist 
Church, also said:f 

^' If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are 
proper subjects of baptism; seeing^ in the ordinary way, 
thei/ can not he saved, unless this he ivashed away hy haptism.^^ 

In the advertisement of this book, ''published by 
order of the General Conference," occurs the fol- 
lowing sentence or sentences : 

" Several of the following tracts were formerly published 
in the form of Discipline ; but as this undergoes a revision 
once in four years, the General Conference of 1812 ordered 
these tracts to be left out of the Discipline; and, that they 
might still be within reach of every reader directed tliem 
to be published in a separate volume. They have been ac- 
cordingly prepared and published in this form, in a stereo- 
typed edition." 

So wholesome is Mr. Wesley's doctrine touching 
the was/ling avmy of sins hy haptism^ in the sight 

•^ See Tract on Church Polity, by Dr. Wm. Williams, p. 41. 
t Doctrinal Traces^ p. 251. 



184 PEDOBAPTISM : 

of the Methodists, that the}^ not only heartily in- 
dorse it in General Convocation, but circulate it 
that all may read; and then, to preserve it from 
the ravages of time, and the influence of a better 
understanding of God's Word — so destructive to all 
such errors, they have STEREOXrPED IT. Stereo- 
typed what? Why, that infants ^'can not be saved, 

UNLESS THIS [THEIR ORIGINAL SIN] BE WASHED AWAY BY 

BAPTISM." Behold, the ruinous effects of Pedobap- 
tisni upon the plan of salvation ''by grace through 
faith" as revealed in the Scripture! See how it 
robs the Holy Spirit of his work; overlooks the 
Scripture plan of infant salvation; and perverts 
this sublime ordinance of Christ, in its true signifi- 
cance, beauty, and design? Such are its effects 
upon the Christian system. To defend or to sup- 
port in any way the dogma is to strike with heavy 
blows the central pillar of the truth of the Gospel. 
Further the cause of Pedobaptism, and you 
undermine the ver}^ foundation stones of the mag- 
nificent temple of the "faitli once delivered to the 
saints;'* and that temple, if it does not fall, will 
be shaken from the tower to its very base. Pedo- 
baptism is at war with every true principle of 
Christianity. Any one of the above charges is suf- 
ficient to condemn the rile as of human origin. 
Others might be given; or either of these could 
have been further elaborated. And now let an in- 
telligent world, and especially those who love the 
Savior, decide, with an unprejudiced mind, whether 
a dogma, against which such charges have been 
sustained, ought to be defended and practiced as a 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 185 

divine institution. These objections to infant bap- 
tism are suflicient to induce all, who bow to the 
Savior's authority, to enlist under his banner, and 
towage a war of extermination against this human 
rite, contravening Christ's commands, subverting 
his doctrines, dividing his followers, entailing upon 
humanity untold miseries, and withal having no 
sanction in the Word of God. 

The words of Prof. Lange, one of the foremost 
Pedobaptists of Europe, are of the most weighty 
import ; and would that they could be sounded 
through the length and breadth of the land, that 
every one who bears the title Pedobaptist might 
hear them : 

" Would the Protestant Church fulfill and attain to its 
final destiny, the haptisrii of new-horn children must of neces- 
sity he aholished. It has sunk down to a mere formality, 
without any meaning for the child. "^^^ 

-^- Baptist Short Method, p. 120. ^ 



CHAPTER XI 



CONCLUSION. 



As the present work has already reached, and 
even gone beyond, the original intentions of the 
writer, it may seem an encroachment upon the 
patience of the reader to add anything further. A 
word or two however must be added in conclusion. 

I. And first it is proper to sum uj> what has 
been done in the preceding pages. 

The following propositions (the writer would 
modestly submit) have been full}^ established. 

(1) Infant baptism was not ordained by Jesus 
Christ; though Christian baptism is an ordinance of 
his appointment; (2) Tlie Apostles, in imitation of 
their Master, nowhere either practiced or men- 
tioned, or even in any way alluded to infant bap- 
tism, though there are numerous accounts of their 
administering, in obedience to Christ's command, 
the ordinance of Christian baptism. They uni- 
formly and exclusively baptized helievers; (3) 'J'he 
claims so often made to the identity of the Church 
of Christ and the Jewish Theocracy, and to the sub- 
stitution of baptism in the room of circumcision, are 

(186) 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 187 

wholly gratuitous assumptions, and afford not the 
slightest support to infant baptism; (4) Through a 
superstitious perversion of the design of the ordi- 
nance of baptism, along with the corruptions of 
other doctrines so common to the '• dark ages," in- 
fant haptism had its origin^ (perhaps among the wild 
vagaries of benighted Africa, where no apostle, or 
inspired man, so far as is known, ever preached or 
labored, but where Cyprian lived as pastor, and 
taught his mischievous doctrines). And for the 
first time in all the records of history it is men- 
tioned in the third century by Tertullian, who con- 
demned the practice, as having no foundation either 
in reason or in revelation ; (5) To all of the above 
points many of the ablest Pedobaptisls have given 
the weight of their most unqualified concessions; 
claiming, however, this cSz'Z^nc?^ — throughout the New 
Testament, also for centuries of uninspired historj^, 
— as an argument in favor of the practice. The 
profound silence of centuries — of one, two, or three 
hundred years! How loudly, and eloquently, and 
withal how correctly, especially, it speaks! ! 

"How wonderful the ear that catches the sounds of 
silence I How sweet to one, blessed with such a rare pos- 
session, must be the music of stillness, echoed by the hills 
of nonentity! To such persons, of course, the silenc of the 
New Testament is as the voice of many waters in favor of 
infant baptism." 

(6) And against this dogma there are many serious 
charges, some of which have been preferred and 
sustained. These points having been established, 
it is, therefore, evident that infant baptism is not 



188 PEDOBAPTISM : 

from heaven, is not of divine appointment; but is 
an institution of man. No longer sliould it, there- 
fore, be administered as of divine appointment, but 
should be abandoned by all lovers of the truth of 
the Gospel. 

11. The following was talven from the Christian 
Advocate^ June 5th, 1875, a Methodist paper pub- 
lished in Nashville, Tennessee. 

^aNFANT BAPTISM.'^ 

'^ In your issue of the 22d you ' call attention to the sad 
neglect of infant baptism in this country/ and attribute it 
to 'the decay of piety — family religion.' Allow me to say, 
in addition to this, that it is, according to my observation 
for many years past, in a considerable degree, owing to the 
prevalence of anti-pedobaptism in our Church. You know 
our rubric allows the candidate the choice of sprinkling, 
pouring, or immersion, in the mode of baptism, and through 
this door thousands have been admitted into the Church 
who are thorough anti-pedobaptists - except close commun- 
ion ; and they not only neglect to have their children bap- 
tized, but are flatly opposed to it in every sense of the word. 
While this door stands open, and anti-pedobaptists maintain 
their exclusive close-communion doctrine and practice, may 
we not expect it will go on increasing more and more? An- 
other reason for it is, that our pastors in this country do not 
preach the nature, ground, and duty of infant baptism as 
much as they ought to do. It is seldom that the subject is 
introduced in our pulpits, notwithstanding there is an un- 
ceasing fire kept up from the line of the opposition. 

^'T. L. Boswell/* 

That is a wonderful paragraph, coming as it does 
from the pen of a Methodist, and published in a 
Methodist paper! Several items might be noticed. 
The fact that infant baptism is on the decline, as is 
here asserted^ is a matter of great joy to all who 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? * 189 

rejoice in the simplicity of the truth, and the purity 
of the ordinances of the Gospel/^' 

But liave not these writers made a mistake in 
pointing out the cause of that decline? Certainly, 
the main— the underlying— cause for it, is the in- 
crease in New Testament knowledge. Somehow, 
account for it as you may, where the Bible is fully 
circulated and read, infant baptism will not thrive. 

In fact the masses can not find tlie rite in *' all 
our sacred writings." And, what is worse, their 
leaders can neither give them a plain '' thus saith 
the Lord,'- nor can they give any scriptural reason^ 
for the practice; '^especially since," as Dr. Bledsoe 
said, ''the New Testament has been subjected to a 

* The foUowing bit of information, appearing in the editorial 
column of The Religious Herald^ published in Eichmond, Virginia, 
December 2d, 1S75, is pertinent to tliis point. 

*' DECLINE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

"The Virginia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South was in session week before last in the town of Danville, in 
this State. From the report of its proceedings in the Danville NewSj 
copied into the Fredericksburg Daily News^ we make the following 
extracts : 

'''■Madison — John W. Hildrup. E'-port good; nothing against 
him; only one infant baptized. The Bishop wished to know if 
this was a fair representation of the work in his section. 

'''-Fluvanna — Kev. John W. Howard. Report good; nothing 
against him. The Bishop did not think that the Church was 
making any headway, if, out of over 500 members, not a single in- 
fant baptism. The report of the minister showed that tne best men 
on his circuit obj-^cted to having their children baptized. 

^^Bedford — Edgar H. Pritchett. Reported no infant baptism, 
which was accounted for by the brother, who stated that it was be- 
cause there were fewer children this last year. 

^^Appomattox — James E. McSparian. Reported as being in ill 
health; infant baptism none, stating that it Lad gone by the board. 

" Most of the remaining reports from the circtiits and stations, on 
the day referred to, contained no account of infant baptisms ; and 
in ot tiers the number of such baptisms stated varied from two to 
twelve." 



190 * PEDOBAPTISM : 

closer, more conscientious, and more candid exege- 
sis, tlian was formerly practiced." And, further, 
they can not give to their people one single satis- 
factory reason why they should have their infants 
baptized. Nor is this in any sense owing to any 
want of faithful eflbrt on the part of the preachers. 
They do their Ijest. What the writer of the above 
paragraph says on this point may be true in his 
immedicite neighborhood, but certainly in this State 
(Kentucky) the opposite is true. A perpetual fir- 
ing is kept up all along their line. 

The preachers have preached on the subject, 
they have written on it— in periodicals of all sizes, 
from a weekly county paper up to Bledsoe's Quar- 
terly, in published sermons and in books, and^withal 
they have held debate after debate on the subject. 
And the conferences have put forth their best men 
for this special purpose. But the truth is, the more 
they preach, and the more they write, and, espe- 
cially, the more they debate, the more infant bap- 
tism wanes. And the less inclined are parents to 
have 'Hhe little ones dedicated to God in baptism." 
The blazing light of God's word is becoming too lu- 
minous for the dogma, and it must therefore decline. 
History shows that whenever God's word has been 
freely circulated and read by the people, the prac- 
tice of infant baptism has decreased. And when, 
on the other hand, that word has been chained, or 
in any way kept from the people, then the dogma 
revives with all its primeval freshness — ^for such 
was its native soil and climate. Nothing is more 
destructive to this error than Bible knowledge. 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OU OF MEN? 191 

The newspaper letter reveals another fact, which 
no doubt has often been seen and as often wondered 
at, viz: — '^^ Thousands have been admitted into the 
Church, wlio are thorough antUpedohaptists — ex- 
cept close communion; and they not only neglect 
to have their children baptized, hut are flatly op- 
posed to it in every sense of the wordP This is 
said only of the Methodists, but it is equally true 
of all Pedobaptist churches. These persons, it is 
claimed, remain with these churches, simply be- 
cause open communion, falsely so called, is prac- 
ticed in them. But this is impossible unless, per- 
adventure, the persons themselves are woefully 
and unpardonably ignorant of the Baptist princi- 
ples of Church Communion. This subject, how- 
ever, can not be discussed here!* But let one 
passing remark be made: Baptists are not so close 
in their communion as are the Pedobaptists. For 
they will commune with all their own members, 
while Pedobaptists invariably neglect the infant 
portion of their membership, and never invite 
them to the table. There is every reason for this 
as there is for baptizing them. Why are they thus 
neglected? 

These thousands of anti-pedobaptists in Pedo- 
baptist churches have never studied the evil of the 
dogma of infant baptism — which they however 
condemn; nor have they ever realized, that the 
w^orld and all anti-pedobaptists consider them as 
defending the dogma; that in fact all of their ia- 

* See Gardner's Churcli Communion. 



192 PEDOBAPTISM : 

fluence is in its favor. If they did tliey certainly 
could not remain there with an easy conscience. 
By their membership in these churches they not 
only countenance, but foster one of the direst evils 
with which Christianity ever had to deal. Are 
these thousands willing to lend their support to 
such an evil ? Can they do so and maintain a con- 
science void of offense before God ? Will you be 
disloyal to Christ, prove traitor to his cause, uphold 
what you condemn as an error, and an QYiX^forany 
human G07isideration f Not unfrequently do we 
find wives, members in Baptist churches, who, to 
gratify the whimsical notions of a prejudiced and 
overbearing husband, go into Pedobaptist churches 
declaring their opposition to infant baptism. These 
churches, strange to say, are inconsistent enough 
to receive them as members in good standing. But 
can an individual sacrifice their higJiest principles 
for such a reason ? Better die than sacrifice truth. 
Our fathers have died in opposition to this very 
error. ''Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt- 
ofl'erings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice 
of the Lord? Behold, to oley is better than sacri- 
fice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."* And 
yet intelligent persons talk of being willing to make 
sacrifices — and that too of things which do not be- 
long to them, for the sake of some family tie — to 
live in a church with such or such a person. 8uch 
persons would do well to memorize those cutting 
words of the Master: "He that loveth father or 
mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 193 

that loveth son or daughter more than me is not 
worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross 
and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.''* 
Ghvi&t fii'st^ in our affections, and, all else afterward. 
To do his will is our first duty. How can a Bap- 
tist — a person opposed to infant baptism — live in a 
Pedobaptist church ? Are such churches fit homes 
for these thousands of anti-pedolaptists^ who not 
only neglect to have their children baptized, but 
are flatly opposed to it in every sense of the word? 
No. Thrice no. You can not remain there, and 
be faithful to yourself, faithful to the cause of 
truth, or faithful to your Master. ^ Wherefore come 
out from among them, and be ye separate, saith 
the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I 
will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, 
and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the 
Lord Almighty."! 

IIL If for the reasons mentioned there are 
thousands of anti-pedobaptists in Pedobaptist 
churches, so also are other thousands there, simply 
because they have never examined the subject for 
themselves. If they believe it and practice it, they 
do so either because it is in the creed of their 
church; or because their parents were raised, and 
raised them, in that church; and are members not 
from any well grounded principles^ but simply by 
the tide of circumstances. And perhaps some are 
in, and have not the moral courage to get out, and 
practice this rite simply because thej are in these 

* Matt. X. 37, 38. 
t 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. 



194 PEDOBAPTISM : 

churches. A Presbyterian minister of no mean 
standing, admitted not long ago to the writer, that 
he had never examined for himself the question of 
baptism, either as to its mode or subjects; but he 
was a Presbyterian simply because his father was. 
In so saying he but gave utterance to the true feel- 
ing and condition of hundreds of his people. Does 
such a course become any one of Christ's professed 
followers, to say nothing of one who expounds the 
law of the Gospel ? How would all such reasons 
vanish as the mist before the morning sun, before 
the trying persecutions of former ages! Oh! my 
beloved friend, see that your faith is well founded 
in the teaching of God's word ! And see to it for 
yourself^ for ''every one of us must give account of 
himself unto God/' Can you render such an ac- 
count upon the testimony of any one else, even of 
your parents? Trifle not with the commandments 
of Christ — for in keeping them there is great re- 
ward. But, "be ready always to give an answer to 
every man that asketh you, a reason of the hope 
that is in you, with meekness and fear." 

IV. Let Baptists be exhorted to remain stead- 
fast to the principles, that have through all the 
ages, made theni a peculiar people. 

By unflinching fidelity to these the Baptists have, 
under God^ done much for the world, and for the 
advancement of truth, and toward maintaining the 
primitive purity and simplicity of the Gospel. 
While there is no room for hoasting^ yet there is 
much for which they should be profoundly grate- 
ful and humble. The following quotations show 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN? 195 

something of what Baptists have done, and what 
they are in the world, even as viewed by those who 
are not Baptists : 

"Let it never be forgotten of the Baptists," said Chal- 
mers,* an eloquent Presbyterian of Scotland, " that they 
form the denomination of Fuller, and Gary, and Ilyland, 
and Hall, and Foster; that they originated one of all mis- 
sionary enterprises ; that they have enriched the Christian 
•literature of our country with an authorship of the most 
exalted piety, as well as the first talent, and the first elo- 
quence ; that they have waged a noble war with the hydra 
of Antinomianism ; that, perhaps, there is not a more in- 
tellectual community of ministers, or who have to their 
number put forth a greater amount of mental power and 
mental activity in the defense and illustration of our com- 
mon faith ; and what is still better than all the triumphs of 
genius and understanding, who by their zeal and fidelity, 
and pastoral labor among the congregations they have 
reared, have done more to swell the lists of genuine dis- 
cipleship in all the walks of private society, and thus both 
uphold and extend the living Christianity of our nation." 

In his work on " Religion in America," Dr. Baird 
also says:f 

^^ The ministry of the Baptists comprehends a body of 
men who^ in point of talent, learning, and eloquence, as 
well as devoted piety, have no superiors in the country." 

With a great price have they purchased these 
golden opinions from those who are not of their 
number! In this country Baptists have grown un- 
til they have become a mighty host, '' that looketh 
forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the 
sun, and terrible as an army with banners." In the 

* Quoted in Ford's Origin of the Baptists, p. 14. 
t As quoted in " What the Baptists have done for the World,'' a 
tract by Geo. B. Taylor, D. D., p. 22. 



196 PEDOBAPTISM : 

year 1770 there were in the whole United States 
only seventy-seven Baptist churches. But they 
have grown and grown until now in the same ter- 
ritory, there are of this once despised and perse- 
cuted people, 21,510 churches, 13,354 ministers, and 
1,761,171 members. And, while in this State (Ken- 
tucky) just one hundred years ago the first Gospel 
sermon, ever preached in the "dark and bloody 
ground," was preached by a Baptist minister driven 
from his home in Virginia by persecution ; at this 
time there are in the State, sixty associations, 1,367 
churches, 723 ministers, and 147,031 members — one 
Baptist to every ten of the population. We do not 
glory in any of these things. 'VGod forbid that we 
should glory in anything save in the cross of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." But, oh, wJiat hath God wrought! 
"-In the name of our God we lift up our banners," 
on which are the inscriptions of divine truth — truth 
that has flamed through all the ages, even in the 
darkest hours of the darkest nights of superstition; 
truth that has withstood the ravages of the fiercest 
persecution, the ''Truth, like a torch, the more 'tis 
SHOOK, it shines;" and truth that is written upon this 
banner by the divine hand and in letters of imper- 
ishable light that all may see — 

Salvation by grace through faith; 
The spirituality of Christ's Church; 
And the ordinances in their purity. 

Who would question that this people— QNQn the 
Baptists — have, as Neander said, a future and a 
future work? Even those who are not of their 



IS IT FROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 197 

number are turning to them with kind words of 
cheer, and with brigJit expectations. Bishop Smith, 
of Kentucky, as quoted by Curtis* says : 

'^ God, in his wise Providence, has permitted the rise of 
the various sects of Baptists for the purpose of ultimately 
restoring the primitive mode of baptism.'' 

The late Dr. Wood, of Andover, Massachusetts, in 
1854, thus expressed himself rf 

^^ I entertain the most cordial esteem, love, and confidence 
toward the Baptists as a denomination. I have had the 
freest intercourse, and the sincerest friendship with Baptist 
ministers, theological students, and private Christians. And 
I have wished that our denomination — the Congregational 
— was as free from erratic speculations, and as well founded 
in the doctrines and experimental principles of the Puri- 
tans, as the Baptists. It seems to me they are the 
Christians who are likely to maintain pure Chris- 
tianity, AND TO hold fast THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS." 

And Dr. John Hall, a Presbyterian minister of 
New York, and second to none in his denomination, 
speaks as follows, touching the tendency to heap 
censure on the Baptists for their close communion: 

" Whether the assailants act wisely or kindly in that mat- 
ter, or not, is an open question. It is a course of doubtful 
catholicity to raise a popular cry against a most valuable 
body of people who honestly defend and consistently go 
through with what they deem an important principle. 
* Charity suffereth long and is kind.' And it is doubtful if, 
considering the lengths to which liberal ideas have been 
carried in this country, there be not some gain to the com- 
munity as a whole from a large denomination making a stand 
at a particular point and reminding their brethren that 
there are Church matters which we are not bound, are not 



* Prog. Bapt. Princ. p. 138. 

t See Taylor's tract before referred to, p. 26. 



198 pedobaptism: 

even at liberty, to settle according to the popular demand, 
as we would settle the route of a railroad/' 

If there was ever a time when Baptists should 
do their duty, their whole duty, it is now. Never 
through all the ages have they had such an oppor- 
tunity for spreading their principles — the principles 
of the Gospel — as they have now. Let Baptists^ 
true to their persecuted ancestry, true to time- 
honored principles, and above all true to their 
Master and Redeemer, rise up in the full strength 
of their manhood. What persecutions, by fires, by 
confiscations, by scourging, by imprisonment, or by 
death, could not accomplish, let not the world do 
by seductive smiles. 

Fearlessly defend the truth ; and condemn the 
error. ''Contend earnestly for the faith once de- 
livered to the saints ; " hut always in a spirit of 
love and meekness. While we should love those 
who differ from us, yet we should love our Savior, 
his cause, and his truth, more. Through all the 
ages our fathers have suffered, and died, in contend- 
ing for these time-lionored principles. And shall 
we, now rejoicing in the work of their hands, sur- 
render the very things for which they have strug- 
gled so hard and so long ? The Baptist brotherhood, 
with united breath, all over this land will exclaim — 
NO, NEVER. We have seen the long train of evil 
which has resulted from this human institution — 
of baptizing infants, — are we willing now to turn 
and smile on it as an angel of purity fresh from the 
celestial city? 

Nurse it, and like a viper it will sting you in re- 



IS IT PROM HEAVEN OR OF MEN ? 199 

turn. It is wise to be silent sometimes. But there 
are times when silence is cowardice — times when 
to be silent is to be a traitor. Christ has given you 
his banner, and bid you bear it to the uttermost 
parts of the earth. Let none mar its beauty. Be 
true to your orders. Unfurl the banner to the 
breeze. Move onward, and upward, ever crying for 
the help and the blessing of your Redeemer — the 
Captain of your salvation. And never, no never, 
cease your march until all the kingdoms and na- 
tions of this world shall become the kingdoms of 
our Lord and of his Christ; until victory ! victory ! 
shall be the cry in every land ; '^Thanks be unto God 
who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus 
Chist;" Christ '' is King of kings and Lord of lords.'* 

O God, may the banner which thou hast given 
to them that fear thee, and upon which is emblaz- 
oned the faith of the Gospel, he displayed because 
of the truth !* 

Grant thy people grace to say, each one, as thy 
prophet said: "For Zion's sake I will not hold my 
peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be silent, 
until the righteousness thereof go forth as bright- 
ness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that 
burneth." 



* Psalm Ix. 4. 

THE END. 



4 



First Premium and Prize Medals awarded at the Cincin nati Indus- 
trial Expositions of 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1 874. 




) 


CO 


e 


cc 


» 


r, o 




a i- 
% < 

d CC 


< I 


a UJ 


^l 


? O 


P4 — 


^i 






5 q: 




1 < 


J H 

p GQ 


1 ^ 

1 cr. 


Z O 


^ UJ 


P H9 


^ 



^ 



s-i 
O 

n 
O 



Z73 



F4 

CIS 



j^ CSI 



o 
o 



Illustrated Price Lists sent on application. 



ONLY ONE DOLLAR. One of the "BOOKS FOR THE MILLIONS." 



PEDOBAPTISM: 

IS IT FEOM HBAYBJSr OR OF MEN ? 



J. M. FROST, Jr., Lexington, Ky. 

It contains over ONE HUNDRED valuable quotations from 
standard Pedobaptist authors, with a convenient table of reference. 

Send for it; Eead it; and Tell ?oiir Neighbors of it, 

FOR SALE BY 

AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, PHILADELPHIA; 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, MEMPHIS; 
GEO. E. STEiJENS & CO., CINCINNATI; 

STARKE & RYLAND, RICHMOND, VA. ; AND 
FRANK A. ATKINS. LEXINGTON, KY. 

TERMS: Single Copy, One Dollar (postage pre-paid to MINISTEES on a single 
copy) ; Twelve Copies, Ten Dollars ; Fifty Copies, Forty Dollars. 



Agfents wanted everywhere to sell this book, with special terms offered. 

If you want an ag«ncy write to the author. 



Im/im MmMm Eil 



IFOK. 1874 



The Singer Manufacturing Co. sold - 

Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. sold 
Howe S. M. Co. (estimated) sold 
Domestic Sewing M. Co. sold - - - 
Wood Sewing Machine Co. sold - 
Q-rover & Baker (estimated) sold - 
Remington Empire S. M. Co. sold 
Wilson Sewing Machine Co. sold - 
aold Medal S. M. Co. sold 
Willcox & Gibbs S. M. Co. sold - 
American B. H. &c. S. M. sold - 
Victor Sewing Machine Co. sold - 
Florence Sewing Machine Co. sold 
Seeor Sewing Machine Co. sold 
J. E. Braunsford (^tna) sold - 
Bartram & Fanton S. M. Co. sold - 
McKay S. M. Association sold - 
Keystone S. M. Co. sold 



'^wLm 



MACHINES 

241,619 

92,820 

35,000 

22,700 

20,495 

20,000 

17,608 

17,526 

15,214 

13,710 

13,529 

6,292 

5,517 

4,541 

1,865 

250 

128 

37 



Singer Manufacturing Co., 

ei WEST rOIBIB STSESI, HATI, OEIO, 

We think that this, with the corresponding gains of for- 
mer years, is a sure criterion of the relative value of the 
different machines. 



Im Mttttt fsitttlttf §M. 



PRINTERS, BINDERS AND STEREOTYPERS, 



^76 Am -178 Elm Street, GiriciHilATi, 0* 



We are prepared to execute in a satisfactory manner any- 
thing in the printing line, having facilities for the work 
unsurpassed in the West. 

Books, Catalogues, Sermons, etc., printed at short notice 
and on favorable terms. 

Correspondence solicited in regard to prices for work, and 
estimates furnished on application. 

ELM STREET PRINTING COm 

176 AND 178 Elm Street, 

CIIVCIIVIVATI, O. 



AGENTS WAl^TED FOR 









The Spirit and Power of the religion of Jesus Christ, 
as illustrated in the Sufferings and Triumphs of His fol- 
lowers. A nobler, sweeter and more thrilling story is not 
to be found in the whole range of history. Magnificently 
illustrated on steel with the best engravings of Sartain and 
Illman, and splendidly bound in the highest and latest style 
of the art. THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND AT- 
TRACTIVE BOOK EVER OFFERED TO AGENTS. 
For circulars, with full description, address 

MTIOML PUBLISHISG CO., 

OIlVOIIVTSrATI, OHIO, 
Agentst Wanted for 

ilSf Oil Of f 11 1, s. 

Embracing a clear account of the Aborigines ; the Norse 
explorations of the eleventh century ; a full series of pro 
gressive Maps ; numerous colored chronological Charts (after 
the plan of Lyman's Historical Chart) ; the largest and finest 
gallery of Portraits ever incorporated in a work of this kind, 
and topographical Diagrams that accurately locate every 
important military operation, battle scene, etc. THESE 
DISTINCTIVE FEATURES, AND ITS MANY OTHER 
EXCELLENCIES, MAKE IT THE MOST RAPIDLY 
SELLING BOOK EVER OFFERED TO AGENTS. A 
$5.00 Book for $3,00. Send for Illustrated Circulars and 
terms. 

JOHSS BROTHERS & CO., Publishers, 

Oiueinna/ti, Pliila^clelpliisL a.ii<l Oliicei^o. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



